Photo: Arenacreative/iStockphoto.com

A federal judge has denied class certification to a nationwide group of plaintiffs who claimed that a company's shingles were so unreliable that using them were like “playing roulette.”

On Monday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit determined that a proposed class of consumers from Pennsylvania, Texas, California and Illinois, who bought Owens Corning shingles, failed to identify a defect that was common to each plaintiff's case. The precedential ruling affirmed a decision from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, which had said plaintiffs' theories were too broad to show that the class would be sufficiently cohesive under the predominance requirement for class certification.

Although the plaintiffs had argued that the proposed class had uniformity because buying Owens Corning's Oakridge shingles was essentially entering a “shingle lottery,” Third Circuit Judge Thomas Hardiman said that argument failed to give enough specifics to warrant class certification.

“Instead of alleging a defect common to the class that might be proved by classwide evidence, plaintiffs invite us to equate the existence of a defect with the mere possibility that one might exist,” Hardiman said in the 34-page opinion. “We find no support in Rule 23 or case law for class certification on such a speculative basis.”

According to Hardiman, the plaintiffs are homeowners who had Oakridge shingles installed before 2006. The shingles were all subject to warranties of at least 25 years, but, according to the plaintiffs, the shingles had high failure rates, which caused property damage and required some plaintiffs to have their roofs reshingled. Hardiman noted that, during the 20-year proposed class period, Owens Corning made at least 23 kinds of Oakridge shingles at 13 plants around the country, using 500 design specifications.

The plaintiffs claimed the shingles were defective for having insufficient tear strength, mat mass, or asphalt quantity or quality. They eventually hired expert Dean Rutila to examine nearly 300 shingles that had been returned in connection with the warranty claims.

Rutila, Hardiman said, determined that about half of the shingles fell at the low end of the company's specifications; however, he could not pinpoint any specific measurement that would constitute a design defect.

The plaintiffs also admitted that many Oakridge shingles will last through the end of the warranty periods, and that a shingle-by-shingle inspection would be necessary to distinguish which shingles are defective, Hardiman said. But, focusing on misrepresentation and breach of warranty claims, the plaintiffs contended that, because buying the shingles was like “playing roulette,” they “did not get the benefit of the bargain” regardless of the individual performance of each shingle.

Hardiman rejected that argument, saying the plaintiffs would still need to show a common underlying defect to obtain class certification.

“Plaintiffs attempt to circumvent the need to identify a common defect by, in effect, redefining the concept to include a subset of defective shingles,” he said. “Unsurprisingly, they cite no case sanctioning such a remarkable proposition.”

Although the plaintiffs also contended that the lower court improperly limited Rutila's testimony, Hardiman did not address those claims, finding that “Even if all of the testimony offered by Rutila were admissible, plaintiffs would no have been able to cure their inability to identify a meaningful defect in the Oakridge shingles susceptible to classwide evidence.”

Washington, D.C.-based Carter Phillips of Sidley Austin represented Owens Corning.

A spokeswoman for Owens Corning said in an emailed statement, “We are pleased with the circuit court's affirmation of the district court's decision rejecting all of the plaintiffs' class claims. Owens Corning has been and continues to be committed to designing, manufacturing, testing and delivering quality products to serve the needs of our customers.”

Robert Klonoff, a professor at Lewis & Clark Law School, who argued on behalf of the plaintiffs, did not return a call seeking comment.