Defective Products Archive

Alert: Whirlpool Dishwasher Fires Lead to Class Action Lawsuit

November 18th, 2011. By AbiK

A class action lawsuit is always news around here, but a lawsuit that arises from a multitude of consumers complaining about fires erupting from their Whirlpool dishwashers is cause for an APB. So please pass this along for everyone’s safety.

A class action lawsuit has been filed in California alleging that Whirlpool (manufacturer of Whirlpool, KitchenAid and Sears Kenmore dishwashers) knew of a product defect in their dishwashers but hid that information from the public.

According to a grassroots consumer complaint website (kitchenaidfire.com), Whirlpool dishwasher owners report that the fires appear to have started in the machines’ control circuit boards. The video from WPRI.com above shows where the dishwasher fire originated for one owner.

Tags: Dishwasher Fire, KitchenAid Dishwasher, Sears Kenmore Dishwasher, Whirlpool, Whirlpool Dishwasher Class Action Lawsuit
Posted in Class Action, Defective Products, lawsuits | 9081No Comments »2011-11-18+15%3A28%3A43AbiK

Oreck Vacuum Class Action, Again (Oreck Air Purifier, too)

October 26th, 2011. By AbiK

Separated at Birth? Oreck Halo and Close Encounters of the Third Kind

Third time’s a charm? Seems we’ve been covering the Oreck germ-killing claim filings for a while now—indeed, we were posting about it back in 2007 when a lawsuit was filed claiming that an Oreck air purifier did not alleviate allergy symptoms (that one was thrown out).

Then just last spring we posted about the Oreck class action lawsuit—Ruscitti v. Oreck Corporation 1:11-cv-03121. In that one, plaintiffs allege Oreck made false claims regarding the Oreck Halo vacuum’s ability to kill germs; specifically, to “kill and reduce virtually all bacteria, viruses, germs, mold, and allergens that exist on carpets and floor surfaces”. You can read our interview with the plaintiffs’ attorney on that one, too.

The Oreck Halo apparently claimed to use UV light to knock out those bad germs. Pictures of the vacuum in use conjure up a scene straight out of Close Encounters of the Third Kind—clearly the Halo designer must’ve had a childhood fixation with the flick (see separated at birth image above—seriously).

Aside from whatever the inspiration was for the vacuum, it’s the advertising that’s at issue. As the ad at right depicts, the Oreck Halo was touted with the headline, “When the light is on, the germs are gone” —and there’s that graphic of the sideways bracket under the word “Kills” that just hangs there as if to literally suck all those bad viruses, mites, bacteria…right up off the ad itself. Why, this would be an asthmatics dream, right?

Wrong—and the FTC didn’t think so either…

In the midst of all these lawsuits, the FTC came down on Oreck for false and deceptive health claims, which led to Oreck coughing up a fine of $750k last May. Oreck, as a quick web search confirms, also stopped selling the Halo vacuum. (They do still sell Oreck Halo vacuum bags, though—for those who’d already drank, or bought, the Kool-Aid®).

Ok, so now we’re at number three…

Another Oreck class action lawsuit has been filed—just last Friday—in California seeking over $5 million in damages. What are the damages you ask? Well, again, it’s about false claims regarding the Halo and Oreck’s ProShield air purifier and their ability to kill germs. Rewind that tape…here’s the heart of the matter straight from the lawsuit: “Defendants’ claims are not adequately supported by credible, scientific testing or other substantiation and are not true”.

The plaintiffs in the new Oreck Halo class action are Roxy Edge of Los Angeles, CA and Linda Gonzalez of Broome County, NY.

Tags: Class Action Lawsuit, Oreck, Oreck Air Purifier, Oreck germ-killing vacuum, Oreck Halo class action, Oreck vacuum lawsuit, oreck-uv-light-flu-fighter-class-action
Posted in Class Action, Consumer Fraud, Defective Products, Emerging Issues, lawsuits | 89582 Comments »2011-10-26+15%3A52%3A41AbiK

ADT Alarm Failure Deadly in Minnesota, Leads to ADT Settlement

October 3rd, 2011. By AbiK

Who ya gonna call? Well, if you’ve had an ADT alarm system installed, you’re proababy thinking you don’t need to call anyone if someone should break into your home. After all, ADT is supposed to be right on it, detecting a break-in and alerting the police who should then get to your home more quickly than if you had detected the break-in yourself and tried to dial 911.

Right?

Unfortunately, a for a couple in Minnesota, things didn’t turn out that way. Their ADT alarm system failed—when they needed it most.

In 2006, Teri Lee had been afraid that her ex-boyfriend, Steven Van Keuren, might cause trouble—he’s the reason why she purchased an ADT system for her home. Sadly, Lee’s worst fears came true when Van Keuren entered Lee’s home and shot both her and her new boyfriend, Timothy Hawkinson. Both Lee and Hawkinson died.

Lee’s estate filed a lawsuit against ADT, and recently reached a confidential settlement.

Loss of life by murder is surely what we’d hope would be a freak accident as the alleged result of an alarm system failure. But it’s not all that far out there to envision, is it?… A break-in happens…should be your run-of-the-mill burglary…maybe the thief is looking for some jewelry, or cash…but maybe he finds the homeowner instead…unexpectedly. The outcome could be all the same—death—except legally we just call it different things…it’s a matter of degrees.

But what if it could’ve been prevented? What if there were a reasonable expectation—heck, a contractual expectation—that an installed alarm system should function properly and the would-be victim were still alive? No alarm system that touts itself as your security blanket and knight in shining armor should fail in your hour of need.

Over the past year and a half, LawyersandSettlements.com has received a number of complaints from individuals stating that their ADT alarm systems failed—or that the ADT response time was inadequate. Thankfully, they are all alive to tell their stories.

And, if we go back to 2007, there actually had been a lawsuit filed against ADT alleging slow response times—and it was seeking class action status.

Tags: ADT alarm failure, ADT alarm system, ADT lawsuit, ADT Security, Defective Product
Posted in Defective Products, Emerging Issues, Settlement | 88102 Comments »2011-10-03+20%3A50%3A21AbiK

Last Call on Certainteed Shingle Settlement – Some may still submit Claim

September 30th, 2011. By AbiK

If you were affected by the CertainTeed Organic Shingle Class Action, listen up.

We’ve gotten a very high number of complaints about CertainTeed shingles—in fact, we continue to get them. But if you purchased, installed—or even took on ownership of a home with defective CertainTeed Organic Shingles—and the shingles failed prematurely or did not perform in accordance with reasonable expectations, you may still be able to submit a claim form over at the CertainTeed Organic Shingle Class Action Settlement website. (Please note: do not submit a complaint here at LawyersandSettlements.com.)

To be sure, figuring out what type of shingles you have, when they were installed, how long the shingle warranty is, and how that all figures into if and when you need to submit a claim form by is no easy task. But the claims administrator has provided a chart showing the various warranty lengths for each of the CertainTeed Organic Shingle types (Custom Lok 25, Custom Saf-T-Lok/Saf-T-Lok, Custom Sealdon, Custom Sealdon 30, Hallmark Shangle, Hearthstead, Horizon, Shangle, Independence Shangle, Master Slab, Sealdon 20, Sealdon 25, Solid Slab).

Once you review the chart showing you what your warranty length is for your shingles, you can then determine when you either needed to submit a claim by (some claim submission dates have already passed) or if you still may be able to file a claim.

IMPORTANT: If you are not covered by the warranty or if you settled your warranty claim since August 1, 2006, your claim form must be postmarked or otherwise received by CertainTeed within 12 months after the effective settlement date of October 2, 2010.

If this applies to YOU—it’s last call for making a claim in the CertainTeed Organic Shingle Settlement—your claim form needs to be postmarked by October 2, 2011 (Sunday). So get moving!

Visit the CertainTeed Organic Shingle Class Action Settlement website for more info.

Tags: Certainteed, CertainTeed Class Action, CertainTeed Organic Shingles, CertainTeed Settlement, Roof Shingles
Posted in Class Action, Defective Products, Emerging Issues, Settlement | 88002 Comments »2011-09-30+19%3A36%3A59AbiK

Bought any Rice Krispies? There’s a Rice Krispies Class Action Settlement

September 22nd, 2011. By AbiK

Kellogg’s Rice Krispies—and Cocoa Krispies—cereals are the focus of a class action lawsuit settlement. Granted, the Class Period for this lawsuit isn’t all that long: it’s for Rice Krispies or Cocoa Krispies bought between June 1, 2009 and March 1, 2010. But, as any mom with school-age kids could tell you, between bowls at breakfast and the ever-popular Rice Krispies treats (homemade, of course), there’s a good chance that a lot of folks—including you—are part of the Class for this one.

So here’s the lowdown on the Kellogg’s Rice Krispies class action settlement…

What is the Kellogg’s Rice Krispies lawsuit about?

False advertising. How? The plaintiff claimed that Kellogg Company made claims about Rice Krispies’ and Cocoa Krispies’ supporting a person’s immunity system (see pic)—without having competent clinical evidence to support the claim. (Personally, I’d be seeking other ways to boost my immunity, but what do I know…). Kellogg denies any wrongdoing, however the company and Class Representatives agreed to settle to avoid the cost of a trial.

Who is part of the Kellogg’s Rice Krispies class action?

Anyone who purchased Rice Krispies or Cocoa Krispies in the US between June 1, 2009 and March 1, 2010 is considered part of the Class.

What will I get from the Rice Krispies settlement?

A settlement fund of $2.5 million has been set up. Claimants will share in the amount left over once attorney fees and an incentive award for Class Representatives have been paid from the settlement fund.

Accordingly, Class Members may then seek reimbursement of $5 per box purchased, up to a maximum of $15 (i.e., 3 boxes) per household. As is typical with class action lawsuits, the actual amount claimant receives will depend on how many valid claims are received for this class action. If valid claims exceed the amount of money available to pay them, then each award will be reduced pro rata.