Return to FAQs
What is the Treon vs. Dryvit System Inc. lawsuit about?
On August 12, 2002, John & Sally Cardamone and others (“plaintiffs”) sued Dryvit Systems, Inc. in Cardamone, et al. v. Dryvit Systems Inc., et al. (Case 2002-CP-07-1377). On September 3, 2002 the court certified the lawsuit as a class action. Plaintiffs claimed Dryvit’s barrier EIFS products are defective because they trap water behind the EIFS and cause hidden water damage, mold, and other damage. Expensive inspections or removing the EIFS may be necessary to repair damage behind the EIFS. Plaintiffs claimed Dryvit was negligent and breached implied warranties of fitness and merchantability for a particular purpose. They alleged the marketing and sale of Dryvit’s EIFS was deceptive and violated the South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act.
In December 2005, Timothy & Jane Treon and P. Jennings Scearce replaced the original plaintiffs to prosecute this lawsuit and serve as Class Representatives. They challenged the validity of a class action settlement that Dryvit reached in a Tennessee state court case known as Posey et al. v. Dryvit Systems, Inc. (Case No. 17,715-IV). The Posey case sought to bind Dryvit homeowners in most states including South Carolina. The Class Representatives also claim that Dryvit wrongfully settled individual lawsuits brought by the original plaintiffs and prosecution of this class action case stopped for a time. In 2008, Class Representatives sued Dryvit and original plaintiffs in another lawsuit claiming that Dryvit and the original plaintiffs conspired to impair the rights of Class Members. The claims against Dryvit in that lawsuit have been added to this lawsuit and Dryvit has been dismissed from that suit to facilitate the Proposed Settlement. Dryvit asked the Court to dismiss this case early because of the settlement in the Posey case. The Court denied Dryvit’s request. Class Representatives further claim that Dryvit committed various acts of sanctionable misconduct in making this request. The Court was addressing these claims when the parties reached the Proposed Settlement described in the Long Form Notice that is posted on this site and can be obtained by contacting Class Counsel at 1.877.977.8397 toll free or by emailing DryvitSettlement@FinkelLaw.com.
Dryvit denies all of the allegations made against it, asserts affirmative defenses and vigorously disputes Plaintiffs’ claims. In the settlement, Dryvit seeks merely to buy its peace and avoid further litigation. The Proposed Settlement does not include any admission by Dryvit of liability or of any other disputed issue.
