Does anyone feel like proof reading Chapter 7 of Robert G. Kramer vs. Sherwin-Williams Company. It is my amended complaint. I will proof read it in the morning before I have it served on the Defendants and filed with the court. I need to get more active speaking again at conventions. I have a one hour keynote right here just sharing what not to do. SW has it down to a science--still wondering why they just would not give me about $80 (at most) worth of paint. Not even sure if this will post it will be a LARGE posting once I paste the amendment in--here goes. IN THE FAIRFIELD MUNICIPAL COURT FAIRFIELD, OHIO ROBERT G. KRAMER ) CASE NO. 2013 SC I 00044 ) Plaintiff, ) AMENDED COMPLAINT ) vs. ) ) THE SHERWIN-WILLIAMS COMPANY ) ) Defendant. ) Pursuant to ORC 1925.09 the claim against the Plaintiff is amended to add the following additional product liability claims to the original breach of warranty claim. Pursuant to R.C. 2307.71 Plaintiff hereby alleges that in regards to Duration paint 1. Defendant sold a product to the Plaintiff which had a defect in manufacture or construction. 2. Defendant sold a product to the Plaintiff which had a defect in design or formulation. 3. Defendant sold a product to the Plaintiff which had a defect due to inadequate warning or instructions. 4. Defendant sold a product to the Plaintiff which had a defect due to failure to a manufacturer’s representation. Corresponding allegations are as follows. 1. Duration was too heavy, created too strong of a bond and lacked elasticity. It does not move with the expansion and contraction of the underlying wood and as a result ripped off all of the previous coatings underneath down to the wood. The wood separating from the wood is known as “wood delamination”. During an onsite inspection by the Defendant’s representative Mr. Bob Kobman a request for replacing the paint was rejected. Defendant stated, “Our paint did not fail, your wood delaminated.” To honor the court, allowing for a speedy ruling, the Plaintiff hereby stipulates that what occurred was indeed a case of the wood delaminating. A preponderance of evidence will be presented at trial both by expert witnesses and research proving that it is the Duration paint itself, because of its defective characteristics which causes the wood delamination. 2. All of the allegations stated in 1. above are restated in support of this claim regarding the defect in design or formulation. To further support claim number two pictorial evidence will be presented showing that ONLY the portion of the house painted with Duration failed. The same preparation of power washing with a 2700 PSI power washer, scraping, sealing with “STOP PEEL” and then priming with “LOCTITE” was used for all surfaces. Even comparing a portion of the home with the same exact solar exposure, a lighter cheaper ($23 per gallon vs. $40 per gallon) coating, FOUR SEASONS manufactured by the MAB company is in near perfect condition. The cedar wood siding coat with Duration has been ruined. Only remedy is to remove all Duration and underling coatings down to the bare wood, but the cost to simply replace the cedar wood siding is just as economical. Waiting on estimates expected to be in the $6,000.00 to $8,000.00 range. The $3,000.00 small claims limit is really a compromise with the Defendant since it is less than half of what might have been awarded by a higher court without the $3,000.00 limit. 3. The paint label and instructions did not include any warning that Duration had a history of failure when used on older homes that were previously painted. A preponderance of evidence will be presented at trial both by expert witnesses and research proving that Duration was a pathetically poor and defective product when used on a home such as mine. The product label attached as Exhibit A to the ANSWER OF THE DEFENDANT does not match the labeling on the Duration paint sold to me. On the contrary my paint is labeled with a large font statement “LIFE TIME WARRANTY”. 4. Sherwin-Williams has an excellent advertising department. Duration was touted to be their very BEST paint and was the most expensive product which they sold for exterior house paint. It was guaranteed for LIFE not to crack, peel, or blister. This is true on certain limited applications. Few problems have been reported when used in new construction, painting older brick homes etc. A preponderance of evidence will be presented at trial both by expert witnesses and research proving that Sherwin-Williams misrepresented their product to an outrageous extent. The Ohio Product Liability Act (R.C. 2307.71-2307.80) must be brought pursuant to ANY one of the statutory theories stated above. Since only one needs to survive for the Plaintiff to prevail., said Plaintiff hereby moves for a directed verdict in its favor. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff moves for a directed verdict in its favor and that Defendant be so ordered to compensate the Plaintiff the maximum allowable small claims court amount of $3,000.00 for the damage done to his home by their defective product, Duration paint. Respectfully Submitted ____________________________________ ROBERT G. KRAMER Counsel pro se 5690 Genevieve Place Fairfield, Ohio 45014 513-885-4600 keynoteman@keynoteman
Posted on: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 05:07:23 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015