A Dallas County jury awarded a $2 million verdict last week to a local company against a San Diego-based roofing products manufacturer because it allegedly did not thoroughly inspect a commercial building’s finished roof.
The commercial building in Sunnyvale is owned by 2×2 Partnership Limited, which sued Rhino Linings Corporation, alleging that it failed to train or vet its recommended installer properly.
“Rhino Linings is a company that’s incredibly well-known around the world for what they call bedliners where they line beds of trucks with this spray coating, which protects the trucks,” said Alan Loewinsohn, attorney and partner with the Loewinsohn Deary Simon Ray law firm in Dallas. “My client knew about them from the automotive industry, so they contacted them, and they found they did these roofs and they were impressed by the salesman. One thing led to another, and that’s why they ultimately hired them.”
Rhino Linings maintains a location in Greenville, Texas, while Lauren and Michael Adell of Dallas own 2×2 Partnership Limited.
“Our position was that, yes, the installer messed up, but the installer was put in the position of doing a job they weren’t qualified to do,” Loewinsohn told Dallas Express. “The jury ultimately found the installer 5% responsible and Rhino Linings 95% responsible. We sued the installer too, but the installer was a one-man shop. By the time of trial, he fired his lawyer. He couldn’t afford to pay him anymore because he didn’t have any money.”
Rhino Linings did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
After the installer completed the roof, the building allegedly experienced more than 200 leaks. It required the installation of a new metal roof over the Rhino Linings products to prevent further damage.
“Rhino Linings is the one who picked the installer to recommend, and they have training programs, but they never train them on how to do roofs,” Loewinsohn said in an interview. “The precedent that it sets is that even if a manufacturer doesn’t sell their products directly to the consumer under certain circumstances like these, they can nonetheless be held responsible if the installation is done incorrectly.”
In 2×2 Partnership, Ltd. v. Rhino Linings Corporation et al., a 12-person jury in the 44th District Court in Dallas County unanimously decided on Nov. 4 that Rhino Linings committed fraud, negligent misrepresentation, negligence, and gross negligence.
“You can imagine the water pouring in and damaging the equipment,” Loewinsohn added. “It created slip and fall hazards. My client had no choice ultimately but to replace the roof to prevent further leaking.”
The jury awarded the full cost of the new roof, which was about $1.25 million, along with $750,000 in punitive damages.
“Tort reform would have kept the punitive damages at two times the actual, so we are under that cap,” he said. “We are filing what’s called a motion for judgment, asking the judge to formally enter a judgment that conforms to the jury’s verdict. Once that’s entered, then they have 30 days to decide if they’re going to appeal it.”
