United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Charleston Division
TED NAPARALA, SR., on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
PELLA CORPORATION, Defendant
Pella Corporation Architect and Designer Series Windows
Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation,
In Re (2:14-mn-00001-DCN): John P. Mandler, LEAD ATTORNEY,
Faegre, Baker Law Firm - Minneapolis Office, Minneapolis, MN;
Shane A Anderson, Faegre Baker Daniels, Minneapolis, MN.
Plaintiff's Lead Counsel, Plaintiff (2:14-mn-00001-DCN):
Daniel K Bryson, LEAD ATTORNEY, Whitfield Bryson & Mason LLP,
Raleigh, NC; Jonathan Shub, LEAD ATTORNEY, PRO HAC VICE, Kohn
Swift and graft, Philadelphia, PA.
Plaintiff's Liaison Counsel, Plaintiff
(2:14-mn-00001-DCN): Justin O'Toole Lucey, LEAD ATTORNEY,
Justin O'Toole Lucey Law Firm, Mt Pleasant, SC.
Pella Corporation, Defendant (2:14-mn-00001-DCN): Amy R
Fiterman, LEAD ATTORNEY, Mark J Winebrenner, Shane A
Anderson, Faegre Baker Daniels, Minneapolis, MN; G Mark
Phillips, Michael Tucker Cole, LEAD ATTORNEYS, Nelson Mullins
Riley and Scarborough (Ch), Charleston, SC; John P. Mandler,
LEAD ATTORNEY, Faegre, Baker Law Firm - Minneapolis Office,
Minneapolis, MN; Kevin L Morrow, Faegre Baker Daniels,
Naparala, Sr, Plaintiff (2:14-cv-03465-DCN): Scott A George,
LEAD ATTORNEY, Seeger Weiss, Philadelphia, PA; Daniel K
Bryson, Whitfield Bryson & Mason LLP, Raleigh, NC; Matthew E
Lee, PRO HAC VICE, Whitfield Bryson and Mason, Raleigh, NC;
Jeffrey A Leon, Quantum Legal, Highland Park, IL.
Pella Corporation, Defendant (2:14-cv-03465-DCN): John P.
Mandler, LEAD ATTORNEY, PRO HAC VICE, Faegre, Baker Law Firm
- Minneapolis Office, Minneapolis, MN; Kevin L Morrow, Faegre
Baker Daniels, Chicago, IL; Mark J Winebrenner, Shane A
Anderson, Faegre Baker Daniels, Minneapolis, MN.
C. NORTON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter is before the court on defendant Pella
Corporation's (" Pella" ) motion for partial
summary judgment. For the reasons set forth below, the court
grants Pella's motion and dismisses Naparala's
fraudulent concealment claim, unjust enrichment claim, and
breach of express warranty claim to the extent it is based on
non-written warranties outside of Pella's limited
Ted Naparala, Sr. (" Naparala" ) began construction
of his new home in September 2005. Def.'s Mot. Ex. 1,
Naparala Depo. 19:24-25. He purchased Pella ProLine and
Architect Series windows on August 25, 2005 from a
Menard's retail store in Wisconsin and he and his son
personally installed them in his home in November 2005.
Id. at 35:11-14; Def.'s Mot. Ex. 3. He and his
family moved into the home in February 2006. Id. at
20:6. Prior to purchasing the windows, Naparala contends that
he had a discussion with a Menard's salesperson, read
brochures regarding Pella windows, and saw a couple of
advertisements on TV regarding Pella windows. Id. at
22:2-25; 38:17-23. Naparala testified that a Menard's
salesperson told him that the windows were " good
windows." Id. at 22:2-4; 26:6-7.
2006, Naparala began observing moisture problems with the
windows and contacted Pella. Id. at 44:15-25.
Naparala testified that all of the rooms in his home were
affected by the moisture problems. Id. at 31:14.
Specifically, Naparala testified that there was "
[m]oisture on the inside of the windows" and that "
[i]n real cold weather they actually had frost on them."
Id. at 31:16-17. Naparala made a service claim under
the limited warranty. Id. at 44:19-45:1. On March
23, 2006, VerHalen, Inc., an independent distributor of Pella
products, sent a service technician to investigate
Naparala's claim. Def.'s Mot. Ex. 5. The technician
indicated that the windows were not sealing properly and
adjusted the cranks on the windows so that they would crank
tighter. Id. at 44:19-45:1.
to Naparala's testimony, the technician did not
specifically say that the problem was fixed, but Naparala
assumed that it was. Id. at 65:21-66:4. Naparala
testified that every year after the original service call he
experienced water damage due to excessive moisture.
Id. at 63:10-14. When asked whether he "
believed that [he] still had a problem with the windows"
" when [he] started seeing the water damage due to
excessive moisture beginning to occur" every fall,
Naparala answered in the affirmative. Id. at
65:1-11. In December 2013, Naparala contacted Pella to submit
a warranty claim. Id. at 45:8-25. On January 27,
2014, a service technician from VerHalen, Inc. visited
Naparala's home and denied warranty coverage, concluding
that the issue with the windows was caused by excess humidity
in the home. Def.'s Mot. Ex. 6.
20, 2014, Naparala filed a class action complaint against
Pella in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Wisconsin, alleging jurisdiction based on the
Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d).
The complaint brings the following nine causes of action: (1)
violation of the Wisconsin Deceptive Trade Practices Act
(" WDTPA" ); (2) negligence; (3) breach of implied
warranty of merchantability; (4) breach of implied warranty
of fitness for a particular purpose; (5) breach of express
warranty; (6) fraudulent concealment; (7) unjust enrichment;
(8) violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act ("
MMWA" ); and (9) declaratory relief. Naparala alleges
that the windows suffer from various design deficiencies,
including " a defect in the design of the sill extrusion
and sill nailing fin attachment as well as a defect in the
design of allowing a gap between the jamb gasket and the sill
gasket." Compl. ¶ 46. According to Naparala, these
defects cause leaks and allow water to be " trapped
between the aluminum and the operable wood frame causing
damage to the Windows and other property within the
home." Id. Naparala alleges that Pella was or
should have been aware that its windows were defective and
that Pella concealed its knowledge of repeated product
defects. Id. ¶ ¶ 50, 52.
August 15, 2014, the United States Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation transferred the case to this court as part of the
consolidated multidistrict litigation. Pella filed a motion
to dismiss on September 15, 2014. Naparala opposed the motion
on October 21, 2014, and Pella replied on November 7, 2014.
After the court issued an order on Pella's motion to
dismiss on May 19, 2015, Naparala's only remaining claims
are for: (1) breach of ...