Class Action Lawsuit Claims Rust-Oleum Deck Restore Products Ruin Decks

Rust-Oleum Corporation has again been hit with a class action lawsuit by consumers who claim that its’ acrylic deck coating products are defective and prone to failure. The products are marketed as –

  • Rust-Oleum Restore Deck Start Wood Primer
  • Restore 2X One Coat Solid Stain
  • Restore 4X Deck Coat

At issue is the Restore line of products fail to adequately adhere to the underlying surface. As a consequence these products prematurely degrade, chip, peel, flake, strip, and otherwise deteriorate a surface.

Rather than providing years of protection, the Restore Products deteriorate in a short time period. Consumers soon discover that the defective Restore Products require removal and replacement of the product coat in its entirety since it fails to protect the deck itself. Thus, instead of ending the cycle of repainting and replacing, the Restore Products actually hasten it.

The various product failures experienced by consumers who purchased Restore Products are at odds with Rust-Oleum’s marketing representations, including promises and representations it makes regarding product quality and performance directly on the product label.

Rust-Oleum’s guarantees, promises, and other representations about its Restore Products induce customers into purchasing the products and lead consumers to believe that the Restore Products are long-lasting and that Rust-Oleum stands behind its advertising representations. For this, Rust-Oleum charges consumers a premium price.

Rust-Oleum knew or should have known of the deficiencies of its Restore Product line and that its marketing label was deceptive. Indeed, this is not the first time Rust-Oleum has been sued regarding the defective nature and inferiority of its Restore brand. Different products marketed and sold by Rust-Oleum under the “Restore” brand were previously the subject of a well-known class action lawsuit that asserted similar allegations regarding product failures of the Restore products. That class action settled in 2016.

If you purchased and used any Rust-Oleum Restore Product you may be eligible for compensation. Contact us and we will review your situation at no cost to you.

Master Complaint for Paragard IUD Lawsuits Will Allow Direct Filing of Cases in Federal MDL

The U.S. District Judge presiding over all federal Paragard IUD lawsuits has asked plaintiffs to file a “Master Complaint” this month, as part of a process expected to allow the direct filing of future claims through an abbreviated “Short Form Complaint” in the multidistrict litigation (MDL).

There are already more than 100 product liability lawsuits filed in U.S. District Courts nationwide over problems with the Paragard birth control implant, which are now centralized before U.S. District Judge Leigh Martin May in the Northern District of Georgia, for coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings. Each of the claims raise similar allegations, indicating the Paragard IUD is prone to fracture and break during removal, leaving women with permanent and debilitating complications. However, as lawyers continue to review and file lawsuits in the coming months and years, it is ultimately expected that several thousand claims will be included in the litigation.

In a case management order (PDF) issued on March 9, Judge May called for plaintiffs to file and serve a Master Complaint against Teva Pharmaceuticals, the Cooper Companies, and CooperSurgical, Inc. by March 22. This pleading will outline all of the allegations raised throughout the litigation, and the manufacturer has been directed to file any responsive pleadings by May 6, 2021.

In complex product liability lawsuits, where large numbers of individuals are pursing similar claims and allegations, it is common for the Court to approve a Master and Short Form Complaint, where plaintiffs can then file future lawsuits through an abbreviated form, where they adopt relevant allegations. Judge May has directed the parties to meet and prepare an agreed upon a Short Form Complaint, as well as a Direct File Order, which will streamline the process for filing new claims directly in the Northern District of Georgia, avoiding costs and delays associated with transferring claims from U.S. District Courts nationwide. The process is also intended to help the parties coordinate, categorize and evaluate the claims.

As part of the proceedings in the MDL, it is expected Judge May will establish a “bellwether” process, where a small group of representative claims will be prepared for early trial dates to help gauge how juries may respond to certain evidence and testimony that will be presented throughout other cases. While the outcome for these early trials would not be binding on other plaintiffs, they may facilitate potential ParaGard IUD settlements which would avoid the need for each individual case to be remanded back to U.S. District Courts nationwide for a separate trial date in the coming years.

Elmiron Lawsuit Alleges Latent Retinal Damage And Impaired Vision Caused By Bladder Drug

According to allegations raised in a recently filed product liability lawsuit, a California woman suffered permanent retinal damage from Elmiron, claiming the makers of the bladder drug failed to warn consumers and the medical community about toxic side effects the medication may have on vision.

The complaint (PDF) was filed by Shirley Ruth Levy in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on August 12, indicating she was left with vision loss following four years of using Elmiron for treatment of interstitial cystitis or “painful bladder syndrome.”

The lawsuit names Azla Corporation, Johnson & Johnson, several of its subsidiaries, including Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Bayer Healthcare, and Teva Pharmaceuticals as defendants, indicating that the drug makers knew or should have known about the link between Elmiron and retinal damage for years, yet withheld warnings and information until a label update was issued in June 2020.

Elmiron (pentosan polysulfate sodium or PPS) has been marketed as safe and effective since 1996, without any indication provided until recently about the toxic effects on the retina, which may result in a condition known as pigmentary maculopathy.

Prior to the warning label update in June 2020, a series of independent studies and case reports have been published in recent years that described users of Elmiron who experienced damage to the retina, resulting in difficulty adjusting in dark light, problems reading, centralized dark spots and other complications. However, prior information was not provided to users or the medical community about the importance of monitoring for vision problems while using the medication.

“At all relevant times, Defendants have failed to adequately warn or instruct patients, the medical community, or prescribers in the United States that Elmiron causes, is linked to, and is associated with vision threatening retinal changes, including vision loss,” the lawsuit states. “Defendants failed to mention vision-threatening retinal changes or the need for opththalmological monitoring in any of the patient materials – including the Patient Education Flyer and Patient Brochure – the sources of information most likely viewed by physician and patients.”

Levy indicates she began taking Elmiron in 2013, and continued to use the medication through at least 2017. As a result of the exposure, she claims that she has suffered toxic maculopathy, retinal damage, blurred vision, distorted vision and other vision problems.

The case joins a growing number of Elmiron lawsuits now being pursued throughout the U.S. court system, each involving similar allegations that former users may have avoided permanent retinal damage if earlier warnings and information had been provided.

Since most ophthalmologists were previously unaware of the vision risks associated with Elmiron, many users were misdiagnosed with other forms of retinal disease and continued to be exposed to the medication, further worsening the damage.

As Elmiron lawyers continue to review and file claims in the coming months and years, it is expected that hundreds of similar complaints may be brought in state and federal courts nationwide.

Emerson Firm Announces Ongoing Investigation of Google Tracking Chrome User Data

Emerson Firm, PLLC announces that it is continuing its investigation into alleged Google tracking of people who used the Chrome browser’s incognito mode.

It has been alleged that Google tracks and collects consumers’ history and other Web activity no matter what safeguards consumers undertake to protect their data privacy. Even when Google users launch a Web browser with private browsing mode activated (as Google recommends to users wishing to browse the Web privately), Google nevertheless tracks the users’ browsing data and other identifying information.

These issues relate to all individuals with a Google account who accessed a website page containing Google Analytics or Ad Manager and who were (a) in private browsing mode in that device’s browser, and (b) did not log into their Google account on that device’s web browser during that session. The relevant time period is June 1, 2016 through the present.

Houston, Texas law firm Emerson Firm, PLLC represents many consumers throughout the nation. Emerson Firm, PLLC and its predecessor firms have devoted their practice to complex commercial litigation for more than thirty-eight years and have recovered more than a billion dollars for consumers in class actions throughout the United States.

If you are a person who is concerned about your privacy and used Google as described above, then this matter should concern you. Please contact us and we will discuss these matters with you and research whether your rights have been violated under your state’s laws.

IMPORTANT: Please contact us with your inquiry using the form below or via e-mail to Tanya Autry (tautry@emersonfirm.com) or John G. Emerson (jemerson@emersonfirm.com) and we will promptly get back to you to discuss your situation.

    Emerson Firm Announces Ongoing Investigation of Business Interruption Claims Relating to COVID-19

    Emerson Firm, PLLC announces that it is continuing its investigation into denial of valid claims by insurance companies following the filing of business interruption claims by many business owners and other business entities.

    Most insurers who have issued all-risk commercial property insurance policies with business interruption coverage, are denying their obligation to pay for business income losses and other covered expenses incurred by policyholders for the physical loss and damage to their property from measures put in place by governmental entities to stop the spread of COVID-19.  We strongly believe that the denial of these claims is wrong and unjust.

    If you are a person or business entity who has entered into standard all-risk commercial property insurance policy with an insurance company, where such policy provides for business income loss and extra expense coverage and does not exclude coverage for pandemics, and who has suffered losses due to measures put in place by civil authorities’ stay-at-home or shelter-in-place orders since March 15, 2020 then you may have a valid basis to pursue litigation.

    Houston, Texas law firm Emerson Firm, PLLC has represented many insureds and consumers throughout the nation. Emerson Firm, PLLC and its predecessor firms have devoted their practice to complex commercial litigation for more than thirty-eight years and have recovered more than a billion dollars for insureds and consumers in class actions throughout the United States.

    If you are a person or a business concerned about the denial of your business interruption claim, then please contact us and we will discuss your claim with you and advise you concerning your rights. After we speak with you, we will need your Policy, Proof of Claim, and any correspondence between you and your insurance company.

    IMPORTANT:  You may contact us using the form below or by email to Tanya Autry (tautry@emersonfirm.com) or John G. Emerson (jemerson@emersonfirm.com) and we will promptly get back to you to discuss your claim.