Quantcast

Lawsuit claims Rust-Oleum Restore products used on deck failed after less than two years

LEGAL NEWSLINE

Saturday, December 21, 2024

Lawsuit claims Rust-Oleum Restore products used on deck failed after less than two years

Federal Court
Wooddeck

KANSAS CITY, Mo. (Legal Newsline) – A Missouri man has filed a class action lawsuit against Rust-Oleum claiming its products are defective after his wood deck began to peel and flake less than two years after applying more than $500 worth of Rust-Oleum's Restore products.

According to the Oct. 1 filing in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri, Allen Garrard filed the complaint on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, against Rust-Oleum Corp. alleging violation of Missouri's Merchandising Practice Act (MMPA), unjust enrichment and breach of implied warranty of merchantability.

"Rust-Oleum sold Restore products to Missouri consumers for the purpose of resurfacing wooden structures, but the company misrepresented, omitted, and concealed material information concerning the efficacy of Restore products, including (1) Restore products are more prone to chipping, peeling, and flaking than comparable wood resurfacing products; (2) Restore products do not last longer than comparable products and, instead, they deteriorate more quickly than comparable products; and (3) Restore products do not provide enhanced protection that is superior to comparable products despite a premium price charged for Restore products," the complaint states. 

Garrard alleges he applied Restore products on his cedar wood deck in September 2017 and by January of this year, the products were detaching, peeling and flaking in several locations.

The plaintiff and the class seek actual damages, restitution, disgorgement, pre and post judgment interest as well as litigation fees. 

The plaintiff is represented by Matthew Dameron and Amy Jackson of Williams Dirks Dameron LLC in Kansas City, Missouri.

U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri case number 4:18-cv-00836

More News