IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

VERONICA APPLEBY; PRISCILLA 

BROWN; JULIAN BROWN; PETER C. 

DEATON; JERMAINE V. ELLIS;

MONIQUE ELLIS; EQWETRUST, LLC;

HESTON SAMUEL o.b.o. H. H. SAMUEL

PROPERTIES, LLC; CINTIA M. 

IGARZABAL; NEVILLE A. KELLY;

VALENTIN MANSUROV; NELINDA 

MARTINEZ; TREVORLYN FAY

MCELROY; MESSINA R. MOHAMMED;

FAROUK MOHAMMED; JEFFREY

ROBBINS; PATRISHA SAMANTHA 

SAMAROO; RAFAELA C. WAGNER;

ANDREW K. WAGNER; DUEANE 

WARREN; and, STACEY WARREN,

Plaintiffs,

v.

KNAUF GIPS KG; and KNAUF 

PLASTERBOARD TIANJIN CO., LTD,

Defendants.

Case No. 0:21-cv-60948

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs allege that defective Chinese-manufactured drywall products have been found 

in their Florida homes. Based on the markings found on the defective products, Plaintiffs bring 

this action against Knauf Gips, KG and Knauf Plasterboard Tianjin, Co., Ltd. (collectively 

hereinafter “Knauf” or “Defendants), who are believed to be the manufacturers of the drywall 

found in Plaintiffs’ homes. Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.20, Plaintiffs have permissively joined as 

parties in this action against these Defendants because their claims arise from a common series 

of actions or occurrences. Each Defendant in this action is liable for damages incurred by 

Case 0:22-cv-61411-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/04/2021 Page 1 of 28
2

Plaintiffs due to their role in the design, manufacture, importing, distributing, delivery, supply, 

marketing inspecting, installing, or sale of the defective drywall at issue in the litigation.

JURISDICTION, PARTIES, AND VENUE

1. This action is within the original jurisdiction of this Court by virtue of 28 U.S.C. 

§1332(a)(2) as the amount in controversy for each Plaintiff exceeds $75,000.00, exclusive of 

interest and costs. Plaintiffs are owners of real property in Florida and all Defendants are foreign 

business entities; thus, complete diversity exists.

2. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over this matter under 28 U.S.C. §1367 

as all Defendants are subject to the Florida Long-Arm Statute, Fla. Stat. §48.193, for the tortious 

conduct described herein.

3. Venue in this district satisfies the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and (c) 

because all Plaintiffs reside in United States, most currently reside in the State of Florida within 

this jurisdiction and a substantial amount of the events and occurrences giving rise to the claim 

occurred in this district, or a substantial part of the property that is the subject of this action is 

situated in this district, while all Defendants are foreign business entities with no principle place 

of business or corporate headquarters located within Florida. 

PLAINTIFFS

4. Plaintiffs, Veronica Appleby, Dueane Warren, and Stacey Warren are citizens of 

Florida and own real property located at 3924 SW 52nd Avenue, Unit 4C, Pembroke Park, FL 

33023. Plaintiffs are bringing claims against Defendants as set forth in the following paragraphs 

of this Complaint.

Case 0:22-cv-61411-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/04/2021 Page 2 of 28
3

5. Plaintiffs, Priscilla Brown and Julian Brown, are citizens of Florida and own real 

property located at 2025 SW Fears Avenue, Port St. Lucie, FL 34953. Plaintiffs are bringing 

claims against Defendants as set forth in the following paragraphs of this Complaint.

6. Plaintiff, Peter C. Deaton, is a citizen of Florida and owns real property located at

3657 NE Pineapple Avenue, Jensen Beach, FL 34957. Plaintiff brings claims against Defendants 

as set forth in the following paragraphs of this Complaint.

7. Plaintiffs, Jermaine V. Ellis and Patrisha Samantha Samaroo, are citizens of 

Florida and own real property located at 3653 NE Pineapple Avenue, Jensen Beach, FL 34957. 

Plaintiffs bring claims against Defendants as set forth in the following paragraphs of this 

Complaint.

8. Plaintiffs, Jermaine V. Ellis and Trevorlyn Fay McElroy, are citizens of Florida

and own real property located at 3655 NE Pineapple Avenue, Jensen Beach, FL 34957. 

Plaintiffs bring claims against Defendants as set forth in the following paragraphs of this 

Complaint.

9. Plaintiffs, Jermaine V. Ellis and Monique Ellis, are citizens of Florida and own

real property located at 3659 NE Pineapple Avenue, Jensen Beach, FL 34957. Plaintiffs are

bringing claims against Defendants as set forth in the following paragraphs of this Complaint.

10. Plaintiffs, Jermaine V. Ellis, a citizen of Florida, and EQWETRUST LLC, a 

limited liability company registered in Florida, own real property located at 3661 NE Pineapple 

Avenue, Jensen Beach, FL 34957. Plaintiffs are bringing claims against Defendants as set forth 

in the following paragraphs of this Complaint.

Case 0:22-cv-61411-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/04/2021 Page 3 of 28
4

11. Plaintiff, Jermaine V. Ellis, is a citizen of Florida and owns real property located 

at 3701 NE Renar Avenue, Jensen Beach, FL 34957. Plaintiff is bringing claims against 

Defendants as set forth in the following paragraphs of this Complaint.

12. Plaintiff, Heston Samuel on behalf of H.H. Samuel Properties, LLC, is a citizen of 

Florida and owns real property located at 5032 SE Mariner Garden Circle, Stuart, FL 34997. 

Plaintiff is bringing claims against Defendants as set forth in the following paragraphs of this 

Complaint.

13. Plaintiff, Cintia M. Igarzabal, is a citizen of Florida and owns real property 

located at 274 NE 78 Street, Miami, FL 33138. Plaintiff is bringing claims against Defendants 

as set forth in the following paragraphs of this Complaint.

14. Plaintiff, Neville Anthony Kelly, is a citizen of Florida and owns real property 

located at 1161 Golden Lakes Blvd., #1326, West Palm Beach, FL 33411. Plaintiff is bringing 

claims against Defendants as set forth in the following paragraphs of this Complaint.

15. Plaintiff, Valentin Mansurov, is a citizen of Florida and owns real property 

located at 6911 Julia Gardens Drive, Coconut Creek, FL 33073. Plaintiff is bringing claims 

against Defendants as set forth in the following paragraphs of this Complaint.

16. Plaintiff, Nelinda Martinez, is a citizen of Florida and owns real property located 

at 14614 93rd Street North, West Palm Beach, FL 33412. Plaintiff is bringing claims against 

Defendants as set forth in the following paragraphs of this Complaint.

17. Plaintiffs, Farouk Mohammed and Messina Mohammed, own real property 

located at 8316 104th Court, Vero Beach, FL 32967. Plaintiffs are bringing claims against 

Defendants as set forth in the following paragraphs of this Complaint.

Case 0:22-cv-61411-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/04/2021 Page 4 of 28
5

18. Plaintiff, Jeffrey Robbins, is a citizen of Florida and owns real property located at 

10560 SW Stephanie Way #1-104, Port St. Lucie, FL 34987. Plaintiff is bringing claims against 

Defendants as set forth in the following paragraphs of this Complaint.

19. Plaintiffs, Andrew K. Wagner and Rafaela C. Wagner, own real property located 

at 11453 SW 126 Terrace, Miami, FL 33176. Plaintiffs are bringing claims against Defendants 

as set forth in the following paragraphs of this Complaint.

DEFENDANTS

20. Both Defendants are foreign entities organized in foreign countries and with 

principal places of business in foreign countries. 

21. Defendant Knauf GIPS, KG (“Knauf GIPS”) is a German corporation doing 

business in several states including but not limited to Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, 

Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas, and Virginia. Knauf GIPS is a leading 

manufacturer of building materials and systems. Knauf GIPS together with Knauf Plasterboard 

Tianjin Co., Ltd, (“Knauf Tianjin”) provides building materials and systems to customers in over 

50 countries, including the United States. Upon information and belief, at all times material hereto, 

Knauf GIPS supervised, operated, trained and otherwise exercised control and/or had the right to

control the operations of Knauf Tianjin and its agents, apparent agents, and employees. 

22. Upon information and belief, Knauf GIPS, together with its affiliates and/or actual 

or apparent agents, including Knauf Tianjin, manufactured, sold, distributed, marketed and placed 

within the stream of commerce gypsum drywall with the expectation that the drywall would be 

purchased by thousands of consumers within various states, including but not limited to Alabama, 

Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas, and Virginia. 

Case 0:22-cv-61411-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/04/2021 Page 5 of 28
6

23. Upon information and belief, Knauf GIPS and/or Knauf Tianjin have continuously 

and systematically distributed and sold drywall to numerous purchasers in the United States and 

their drywall is installed in numerous structures in the United States. Knauf GIPS and/or Knauf 

Tianjin manufactured and sold, directly and indirectly, to certain suppliers in the United States. 

Knauf GIPS directly controlled through its global family of businesses the importation of defective 

drywall at all times and provided oversight of internal investigations of sales of defective drywall.

24. Defendant Knauf Tianjin is a foreign corporation doing business in several states,

including but not limited to Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, 

South Carolina, Texas, and Virginia. Knauf Tianjin is involved in the manufacturing and sale of 

gypsum drywall. Knauf Tianjin is the actual agent and/or apparent agent of Knauf GIPS. Upon 

information and belief, Knauf Tianjin individually and/or together with and at the direction and 

control of its principal, Knauf GIPS, manufactured, sold, distributed, marketed and placed within 

the stream of commerce gypsum drywall with the expectation that the drywall would be purchased 

by thousands of consumers throughout the United States. Knauf Tianjin and/or Knauf GIPS have 

continuously and systematically distributed and sold drywall to numerous purchasers in the United 

States and their drywall is installed in numerous structures in the United States. Knauf Tianjin 

and/or Knauf GIPS manufactured and sold, directly and indirectly, to certain suppliers in the 

United States. Representatives of Knauf Tianjin have intentionally directed communications to 

distributors in the United States, employed American distributors as agents for the company, 

shipped product intending for it to be distributed in the United States and otherwise engaged in 

commerce and/or circumstances that the company reasonably expected that it could be hailed into 

the United States courts.

Case 0:22-cv-61411-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/04/2021 Page 6 of 28
7

25. In 1995, the Knauf GIPS introduced its advanced production techniques and 

technology into China. From 1997 through 2001, Knauf GIPS established three plasterboards 

plants which are located in Wuhu, Tianjin, and Dongguan. The product quality of all Knaufrelated plants in China, including Knauf Tianjin, are strictly controlled according to the 

requirements of Knauf GIPS’ headquarters in Germany. Knauf GIPS’s sales and technical support 

teams support Knauf’s businesses throughout the world, including Knauf Tianjin in China. Knauf

Tianjin and its employees are controlled by the actual and/or apparent agents of Knauf GIPS. And, 

based on information and belief all Knauf entities act without regard to corporate formalities.

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

26. Defendants’ drywall is predominately composed of gypsum.

27. Within Defendants’ defective drywall that was designed, manufactured, exported, 

imported, distributed, delivered, supplied, inspected, installed, marketed, and/or sold by 

Defendants as described herein, sulfur compounds exit the drywall.

28. The sulfur compounds, including Hydrogen Sulfide, Carbonyl Sulfide, and Carbon 

Disulfide, exit Defendants’ drywall and cause rapid sulfidation and damage to personal property 

(such as air conditioning and refrigerator coils, faucets, utensils, electrical wiring, copper, 

electronic appliances and other metal surfaces and property).

29. Although the drywall functions according to its intended purpose as a building 

component, it is unfit for this purpose due to the damaging side effects and/or because its use is 

so inconvenient that Plaintiffs would not have purchased their homes had the side effects been

disclosed by Defendants.

30. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ actions and omissions, each 

Plaintiff’s structures and personal property have been exposed to Defendants’ defective drywall 

Case 0:22-cv-61411-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/04/2021 Page 7 of 28
8

containing the latent defect and the harmful effects of the sulfur compounds that exit from 

Defendants’ defective drywall.

31. Defendants tortiously manufactured, exported, imported, distributed, delivered, 

supplied, inspected, installed, marketed and/or sold the defective drywall, which was unfit for its 

intended purpose in that the drywall caused rapid sulfidation and damage to personal property in 

each Plaintiff’s home, residence or structure.

32. Defendants recklessly, wantonly, and/or negligently manufactured, exported, 

imported, distributed, delivered, supplied, inspected, installed, marketed and/or sold the defective

drywall at issue in this litigation.

33. Defendants recklessly, wantonly and/or negligently implemented faulty procedures 

for purposes of formulating, preparing, testing, and otherwise ensuring the quality and/or 

character of the defective drywall at issue in this litigation.

34. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ defective drywall and the harmful 

effects of the sulfur compounds that exist as a latent defect which exit these products, Plaintiffs 

have suffered, and continue to suffer, economic harm.

35. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ defective drywall and the harmful 

effects of the sulfur compounds that exit these products, each Plaintiff has suffered, and 

continues to suffer damages. These damages include, but are not limited to, costs of inspection; 

costs and expenses necessary to remedy, replace and remove the defective drywall and other 

property that has been impacted; lost value or devaluation of their homes, residences or 

structures and property as a direct result of damage caused to the property and indirect damage 

resulting from perceived defects to the property, including stigma damages and loss of use and 

enjoyment of their home and property.

Case 0:22-cv-61411-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/04/2021 Page 8 of 28
9

36. After learning that their products being sold in the United States were defective, 

Defendants took no action required under federal law (see Consumer Product Safety Act, 15 

U.S.C. § 2051, et seq.) to notify their importers, distributors, agents, or consumers of the harmful 

effects caused by their drywall.

37. After learning that their products being sold in the United States were defective, 

Defendants took no action and initiate a corrective action plan.

38. By failing to take action to notify potential victims or attempt to implement a 

corrective action plan for the damage their defective drywall products caused, Defendants 

directly violated the federal CPSA that specifically requires that when a manufacturer has reason 

to know its product does not meet safety standards, contains a defect, or creates and 

unreasonable risk of death or injury, it must inform the CPSC. (See 15 U.S.C. 2064(b)).

39. After learning that their products being sold in the United States were defective, 

Defendants breached their post-sale duty to warn consumers in Florida, including Plaintiffs, as 

required by the laws of the State of Florida.

40. Based on information and belief, Defendants executed confidential 

indemnification agreements with its distribution partners in the United States on or about 2006, 

rather than comply with its post-sale duty to warn consumers as required by federal law and the 

laws of the State of Florida.

41. Plaintiffs’ damages include, but are not limited to, cost of inspection; cost and 

expenses necessary to fully remediate their homes of defective drywall, cost of alternative living 

arrangements, economic hardship resulting in lower credit ratings leading to higher interest rates 

on loans and credit cards, lost value or devaluation of their homes and property; and, loss of use 

and enjoyment of their home and property. 

Case 0:22-cv-61411-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/04/2021 Page 9 of 28
10

42. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ latent defect in its drywall and the 

harmful effects of the sulfur compounds that exit these products, each Plaintiff has a need for 

injunctive relief in the form of repair and remediation of their home, rescission of contracts, and 

the ordering of corrective notice to the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the federal 

agency charged with implementing a corrective action plan for defective consumer products sold 

in the United States of America.

ESTOPPEL

43. Defendants were and are under a continuous duty to disclose to Plaintiffs and other 

consumers in Florida the true character, quality, and nature of its gypsum drywall products. 

Instead, it actively concealed the true character, quality, and nature of its defective gypsum 

drywall products and knowingly made misrepresentations about the quality, reliability, 

characteristics, and performance of its gypsum drywall products. 

44. Plaintiffs reasonably relied upon Defendants’ knowing and affirmative 

misrepresentations and/or active concealment of these facts. Based on the foregoing, Defendants 

are estopped from relying on any statutes of limitation in defense of this action.

DISCOVERY RULE

45. The causes of action alleged herein did not accrue until Plaintiffs discovered that

the defective gypsum drywall products in their respective homes had the defective characteristics 

that were concealed by Defendants by overt acts and intentional omissions that breached their 

post-sale duty to warn Plaintiffs.

46. Plaintiffs had no realistic ability to discover the presence of the defective drywall 

products or to otherwise learn of the fraudulent concealment and/or intentional 

Case 0:22-cv-61411-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/04/2021 Page 10 of 28
11

misrepresentations by Defendants, until it was discovered and confirmed by an experienced 

Chinese-manufactured drywall inspector.

47. At no time was the defective nature of Defendants’ defective gypsum drywall 

product revealed to the public through either notice to the Consumer Product Safety 

Commission, the State of Florida, or directly to consumers.

COUNT I

NEGLIGENCE

48. Plaintiffs adopt and restate the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth fully 

herein.

49. Defendants owed a duty to Plaintiffs to exercise reasonable care in designing, 

manufacturing, exporting, importing, distributing, delivering, supplying, inspecting, marketing, 

selling, and/or installing this drywall, including a duty to adequately warn of their failure to do 

the same.

50. Defendants knew or should have known that their wrongful acts or omissions 

would result in harm and damages in the manner set forth herein.

51. Defendants breached their duty to exercise reasonable care in the designing, 

manufacturing, exporting, importing, distributing, delivering, supplying, inspecting, marketing, 

selling, and/or installing this drywall.

52. Defendants likewise breached their duties to Plaintiffs by failing to warn about the 

defective nature of the drywall. Defendants, through the exercise of reasonable care, knew or 

should have known the nature of the defective drywall and the adverse effects that it could have 

on the homes and belongings of Plaintiffs.

Case 0:22-cv-61411-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/04/2021 Page 11 of 28
12

53. Defendants breached their duty to exercise reasonable care to timely remove 

and/or recall from the market and/or otherwise prevent the continued contact of Plaintiffs with 

the drywall, upon learning it had been sold in an unreasonably dangerous condition.

54. Given the defect in the Defendants’ drywall, Defendants knew or should have 

known that their product could, and would, cause harm, damages and/or personal injuries to 

Plaintiffs. 

55. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendants’ acts or omissions, Plaintiffs were 

harmed and have incurred damages as described herein.

COUNT II

NEGLIGENCE PER SE

56. Plaintiffs adopt and restate the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth fully 

herein.

57. Defendants owed statutory duties to Plaintiffs to exercise reasonable care in 

designing, manufacturing, exporting, importing, distributing, delivering, supplying, inspecting, 

marketing, selling, and/or installing this drywall.

58. Defendants breached their statutory duties to the Plaintiffs by failing to exercise 

reasonable care in the designing, manufacturing, exporting, importing, distributing, delivering, 

supplying, inspecting, marketing, selling, and/or installing this drywall.

59. Defendants likewise breached their statutory duties, including but not limited to 

those imposed under the International Building Code (“IBC”) and other state and local building 

codes, to Plaintiffs by failing to warn about the defective nature of the drywall. For instance, it is 

specifically alleged that Defendants furnished the drywall in violation of ASTM C 1396/C 

1396M-069, and its predecessor(s). 

Case 0:22-cv-61411-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/04/2021 Page 12 of 28
13

60. Defendants, through the exercise of reasonable care, knew or should have known 

the nature of the defective drywall and the adverse effects that it could have on the homes of 

Plaintiffs.

61. Given the defect in the Defendants’ drywall, Defendants knew or should have 

known that their product could, and would, cause harm and damages to Plaintiffs. 

62. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendants’ acts or omissions, Plaintiffs were 

harmed and have incurred damages as described herein.

COUNT III

STRICT LIABILITY

63. Plaintiffs adopt and restate the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth fully herein.

64. At all times relevant hereto, Defendants were in the business of distributing, 

delivering, supplying, inspecting, marketing, and/or selling drywall for sale to the general public.

65. The drywall, including that installed in the homes of Plaintiffs was placed by 

Defendants into the stream of commerce.

66. Defendants knew that the subject drywall would be used without inspection for 

defects by consumers.

67. Defendants intended that the drywall reach the ultimate consumers, including 

Plaintiffs, and it indeed reached Plaintiffs when it was installed in their homes.

68. When installed in Plaintiffs’ homes, the drywall was in substantially the same 

condition as it was in when Defendants manufactured, sold, and/or delivered it.

69. At all times relevant hereto the subject drywall was used in a manner consistent 

with the uses intended by, or known to Defendants, and in accordance with the Defendants’ 

directions and instructions.

70. The subject drywall was not misused or altered by any third parties.

Case 0:22-cv-61411-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/04/2021 Page 13 of 28
14

71. The Defendants’ drywall was defectively manufactured, designed, inspected, 

tested, marketed, distributed, and sold.

72. The design defect was in designing drywall that allowed high levels of sulfur and/or 

other chemicals to emit through off-gassing.

73. The manufacturing defect was in improperly selecting, testing, inspecting, mining, 

making, assembling, and using, gypsum for drywall with levels of sulfur that were too high and 

emitted various sulfide gasses and/or other chemicals through off-gassing.

74. The drywall was also defective because it was improperly exported, imported, 

distributed, delivered, supplied, inspected, marketed, and/or sold in a defective condition, as 

described above.

75. The Defendants’ defective manufacturing, designing, inspecting, testing, 

marketing, distributing, and selling of the drywall rendered it unsafe and unreasonably dangerous 

for its intended use by Plaintiffs.

76. The drywall is also defective and unreasonably dangerous because Defendants 

failed to adequately warn and instruct Plaintiffs of the defective design, inspection, testing, 

manufacturing, marketing, and selling of the drywall.

77. Plaintiffs were neither aware of the unreasonably dangerous propensities and 

defective condition of the drywall, nor could Plaintiffs, acting as reasonably prudent people 

discover that Defendants’ drywall was defective, as set forth herein, or perceive its danger.

78. Defendants’ defective drywall was much more dangerous and harmful than 

expected by the average consumer and by Plaintiffs.

79. The benefit, if any, of Plaintiffs using Defendants’ defective drywall was greatly 

outweighed by the risk of harm and danger.

Case 0:22-cv-61411-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/04/2021 Page 14 of 28
15

80. The defects in the drywall, as well as Defendants’ failure to adequately warn 

Plaintiffs of the defects rendered the drywall unreasonably dangerous, was the direct and 

proximate cause of damages incurred by Plaintiffs.

COUNT IV

BREACH OF EXPRESS AND/OR IMPLIED WARRANTY

81. Plaintiffs adopt and restate the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

82. Defendants and/or their agents were in privity with Plaintiffs and/or Plaintiffs were 

foreseeable third-party beneficiaries of any warranty.

83. At the times Defendants’ drywall was installed, utilized, supplied, inspected, sold, 

in the Plaintiffs’ homes, Defendants knew, or it was reasonably foreseeable, that the drywall would 

be installed in the Plaintiffs’ homes for use as a building material, and expressly or impliedly 

warranted the product to be fit for that use.

84. Defendants placed their drywall products into the stream of commerce in a 

defective condition and these products were expected to, and did, reach users, handlers, and 

persons coming into contact with said products without substantial change in the condition in 

which they were sold.

85. The drywall was defective because it was not fit for the uses intended by 

Defendants; the installation of the drywall in Plaintiffs’ homes was not suitable for use as a 

building material, because it contained the defects as set forth herein. 

86. The Defendants breached their warranty because the drywall was not fit and safe 

for the particular purposes for which the goods were required (to be installed in Plaintiffs’ homes 

as a building material) due to the defects set forth herein.

87. Defendants had reasonable and adequate notice of the Plaintiffs’ claims for breach 

of warranty and failed to cure.

Case 0:22-cv-61411-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/04/2021 Page 15 of 28
16

88. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendants’ breach of warranties, Plaintiffs have 

incurred harm and damages as described herein.

COUNT V

PRIVATE NUISANCE

89. Plaintiffs adopt and restate the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

90. The Defendants’ tortious or wrongful acts or omissions have caused sulfide gas 

and/or other chemical leaching into Plaintiffs’ homes which has unreasonably interfered, and 

continues to interfere, with the Plaintiffs’ use and enjoyment of their properties and caused them 

harm and damage as discussed herein.

91. Defendants’ interference has impaired the rights of Plaintiffs’ health, comfort, 

safety, free use of their property, and/or peaceful enjoyment of their property.

92. Defendants’ invasions were intentional and unreasonable, and/or unintentional, but 

otherwise negligent or reckless.

93. The interference with Plaintiffs’ use of their property was caused by Defendants 

and is substantial and is ongoing.

94. Defendants’ private nuisance was the direct, proximate, and foreseeable cause of 

Plaintiffs damages, injuries, harm, loss, and increased risk of harm, which they suffered and will 

continue to suffer.

95. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendants’ creation of a private nuisance, 

Plaintiffs have incurred harm and damages and injuries as described herein. 

COUNT VI

NEGLIGENT DISCHARGE OF A CORROSIVE SUBSTANCE

Case 0:22-cv-61411-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/04/2021 Page 16 of 28
17

96. Plaintiffs adopt and restate the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

97. Defendants had actual or constructive knowledge of the extremely corrosive and 

dangerous propensities of the drywall at issue in this litigation.

98. Notwithstanding their actual or constructive knowledge of the corrosive and 

dangerous propensities of the drywall, Defendants nevertheless designed, manufactured, imported, 

distributed, delivered, supplied, marketed, inspected, installed, or sold the drywall for use in the 

homes or other structures owned by Plaintiffs.

99. By causing the sale, distribution, delivery, and/or supply of the drywall under these 

circumstances, Defendants breached their duty to exercise reasonable care and created a 

foreseeable zone of risk of injury to Plaintiffs.

100. Defendants likewise breached their duties to Plaintiffs by failing to warn about the 

corrosive and dangerous propensities of the drywall. 

101. Defendants, through the exercise of reasonable care, knew or should have known 

the nature of the defective drywall and the adverse effects that it could have on the property and 

bodies of Plaintiffs.

102. Plaintiffs have incurred damages by virtue of exposure of their property to the 

defective drywall at issue in this litigation. Given the defect in the Defendants’ drywall, 

Defendants knew or should have known that their product would cause injury to Plaintiffs.

103. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ acts and omissions, Plaintiffs were 

harmed and have incurred damages as described herein. The injuries sustained by Plaintiffs are 

within the foreseeable zone of risk created by Defendants.

COUNT VII

UNJUST ENRICHMENT

Case 0:22-cv-61411-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/04/2021 Page 17 of 28
18

104. Plaintiffs adopt and restate the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

105. Defendants received money as a result of Plaintiffs’ purchase of Defendants’ 

defective drywall, or purchase of homes containing this drywall, either directly or through an

agent, and Defendants wrongfully accepted and retained these benefits to the detriment of 

Plaintiffs.

106. Defendants’ acceptance and retention of these benefits under the circumstances 

make it inequitable and unjust for Defendants to retain the benefit without payment of the value to 

the Plaintiffs.

107. Defendants, by the deliberate and tortious conduct complained of herein, have been 

unjustly enriched in a manner which warrants restitution.

COUNT VIII

VIOLATION OF CONSUMER PROTECTIONAL ACTS

108. Plaintiffs adopt and restate the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

109. This is an action for relief under F.S. § 501.201, et seq. (Florida Deceptive and 

Unfair Trade Practices Act).

110. The Defendants’ acts and omissions as well as their failure to use reasonable care 

in this matter as alleged in this complaint, including but not limited to, the knowing 

misrepresentation or failure to disclose the source, affiliation, origin, characteristics, ingredients, 

standards and quality of defective drywall constitute violation of the provisions of the Florida 

Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.

111. Plaintiffs have suffered actual damages as a result of Defendants’ violation of this

Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act and are entitled to relief.

Case 0:22-cv-61411-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/04/2021 Page 18 of 28
19

112. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendants’ violation of the Deceptive and 

Unfair Trade Practices Act, Plaintiffs have incurred harm and damages as described herein.

COUNT IX

FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION

113. Plaintiffs adopt and restate the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

114. Beginning in 2006, Defendants intentionally and fraudulently misrepresented the 

fitness of their drywall product to its buyers and distributors through its marketing activities.

115. In Particular, Defendants intentionally and fraudulently:

a. Failed to adequately warn about the level of sulfur off-gassing;

b. Failed to provide full and complete information about corrosive nature of the gasses 

its product emits;

c. Provided marketing material that did not adequately disclose the risks that 

Defendants knew of;

d. Provided importers, distributors, or consumers information about their product that 

did not adequately disclose the risks that Defendants knew of; and,

e. Overstated the quality of their drywall product.

116. The representations were made by the Defendants with the intent that importers, 

exporters, distributors and consumers, including Plaintiffs, rely upon them, in willful, wanton, and 

reckless disregard for the lack of truthfulness of the representations and with the intent to defraud 

and deceive Plaintiffs.

117. Plaintiffs reasonably relied on the fraudulent misrepresentations directly or as thirdparty beneficiaries when purchasing their homes. 

Case 0:22-cv-61411-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/04/2021 Page 19 of 28
20

COUNT X

NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION

118. Plaintiffs adopt and restate the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

119. From the time Defendants first tested, studied, researched, evaluated, endorsed, 

manufactured, marketed and distributed, and up to the present, Defendants made 

misrepresentations to Plaintiffs and the general public, including but not limited to the 

misrepresentation that Defendants’ drywall was safe, fit, and effective for use in the homes of 

Plaintiffs.

120. Defendants owed a duty to Plaintiffs to exercise reasonable care to ensure they did 

not misrepresent the safety or fitness for use, and failed to exercise that reasonable care and 

therefore breached their duty.

121. The Defendants made misrepresentations without any reasonable grounds for 

believing them to be true, and were in fact, reckless.

122. The Defendants had a duty to correct these material misstatements because they 

knew or should have known that they were inaccurate and that others would reasonably rely on 

them and sufferdamages.

123. These misrepresentations were made directly by Defendants, by sales 

representatives and other authorized agents of Defendants, and in publications and other written 

materials directed to their customers including builders, distributors and importers, with the 

intention of inducing reliance, purchase, and use of their product.

124. The representations by the Defendants were in fact false, in that their product is not 

safe, fit, and effective for use in the homes and structures owned by Plaintiffs because their 

drywall has a propensity to emit corrosive gasses.

Case 0:22-cv-61411-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/04/2021 Page 20 of 28
21

125. The representations by Defendants were made with the expectation and intention 

of inducing reliance upon them and increasing their sale of drywall products.

126. Plaintiffs reasonably relied on the misrepresentations made by the Defendants to

their detriment.

127. In reliance of the misrepresentations by the Defendants, Plaintiffs were induced to 

purchase and use Defendants’ drywall.

128. If Plaintiffs had known of the true facts and the facts concealed by the Defendants,

Plaintiff would not have used Defendants’ product.

129. The reliance of Plaintiffs upon Defendants’ misrepresentations was justified 

because such misrepresentations were made and conducted by individuals and entities that were 

in a position to know the true facts.

130. As a direct, proximate, and foreseeable result of Defendants’ negligent 

misrepresentations, Plaintiff suffered injuries and damages as alleged herein.

COUNT XI

FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT

131. Plaintiffs adopt and restate the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

132. At all relevant times, Defendants knew that their drywall was defective,

unreasonably unsafe, and that its risks were understated and its benefits were overstated.

133. Defendants willfully, intentionally and fraudulently concealed their knowledge 

from Plaintiffs, Plaintiff’s builders, distributors, importers, and the public, and instead 

knowingly provided false information.

134. Defendants withheld information that they had a duty to disclose through 

advertising, marketing materials, sales personnel, publications, that their product was fit for its 

intended use.

Case 0:22-cv-61411-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/04/2021 Page 21 of 28
22

135. Defendants withheld information about the severity of the risks of using their 

product and their knowledge of the harmful effects.

136. Defendants withheld information that their product failed to comply with the IBC, 

and other state and local building codes like other gypsum products available on the market.

137. The above facts were material and would have been considered important to a 

reasonable person.

138. Had the above facts been disclosed, they would have changed Plaintiffs’ decision 

to purchase their affected property or Defendants’ product.

139. Defendants had a duty to disclose the information to Plaintiffs and other consumers.

140. Defendants had sole access to material facts concerning, and unique and special 

knowledge and expertise regarding, the dangers and unreasonable risks associated with their 

gypsum products.

141. Defendants knew or should have known and expected or should have expected and 

intended that Plaintiffs and others would rely on the inaccurate information they provided.

142. As a foreseeable, direct, and proximate result of Defendants’ actions and fraudulent 

concealment, Plaintiff suffered injury.

COUNT XII

FRAUD

143. Plaintiffs adopt and restate the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

144. Defendants’ intentional misrepresentations and concealments constitute fraud 

under state law and were made with the intent to defraud its distributors and all downstream 

purchasers, including consumers such as Plaintiffs.

145. Specifically, Defendants intentionally and fraudulently did the

following:

Case 0:22-cv-61411-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/04/2021 Page 22 of 28
23

a. In 2006, Defendants received written and verbal complaints from 

U.S. customers about their defective drywall;

b. Specifically, Banner Supply Company passed complaints it 

received from builders and installers to Mike Norris, Defendant 

Knauf Tianjin’s general manager;

c. Based on information and belief, Mr. Norris contacted the Knauf 

headquarters in Germany about the complaints received;

d. Executive level employees of Defendants, including Isabel Knauf 

who was serving as manager of Knauf’s operations in Asia,

discussed the complaints and chose to send at least one corporate 

representative to the United States to meet with one of their larger 

distributors in Florida, Banner Supply Company; 

e. After confirming that their drywall product was indeed defective 

and being widely sold primarily in the Southeastern United States, 

Defendants chose to take no corrective action and instead

continued to sell the product to its distributors without any 

limitation or disclosure regarding the defective nature of their 

product; 

f. After confirming that their drywall product was defective and 

being sold in the United States, Defendants struck an 

indemnification agreement with Banner Supply Company, one of 

its distributors, in order to avoid litigation and to encourage 

Case 0:22-cv-61411-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/04/2021 Page 23 of 28
24

continuing sales of the defective product without any limitation or 

disclosure regarding the defective nature of their product;

g. Based on information and belief, the terms of the indemnification 

agreement between Defendants and Banner Supply required both 

parties to conceal the existence of the deal from government, 

media, and the public;

h. After confirming that their drywall product was defective and being 

sold in the United States, Defendants chose to notify no other 

distributors or buyers that their drywall was indeed defective; 

instead, Defendants chose to conceal the defective nature of its 

product while continuing its marketing and sale of the remaining 

defective product, estimated to be 55 million pounds, that had been 

imported from its Tianjin plant in China; 

i. On information and belief each and every advertisement and 

marketing channel fraudulently omits information about the risks 

of defective Knauf-manufactured drywall and overstates the

benefits;

j. Defendants failed to disclose that their product was not as safe and 

effective asother gypsum products sold by other manufacturers;

k. Defendants failed to disclose that the risk of harm associated with

their gypsum products was greater than the risk of harm associated 

with other gypsum products sold by other manufacturers;

Case 0:22-cv-61411-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/04/2021 Page 24 of 28
25

l. Defendants failed to disclose that their drywall was not adequately

tested;

m. Defendants failed to disclose that testing had revealed

unreasonably high risk of damage to homes and personal 

property;

n. On information and belief, Defendants failed to disclose that 

Defendants intentionally withheld internal quality tests; and

o. Defendants affirmatively asserted that their drywall was safe and 

fit for its intended use.

146. Plaintiffs and other consumers were misled by Defendants’ affirmative statements 

or material omissions that provided the fraudulently inaccurate information described above.

147. Defendants had access to these facts, while Plaintiffs did not and were unaware of 

them and could not reasonably learn of them from an alternative source prior to purchase.

148. The above facts were material to Plaintiffs’ decision to either purchase the gypsum 

product from Defendants’ distributors or to purchase the affected property, and they reasonably 

relied on Defendants’ representations either directly or indirectly.

149. As a direct, proximate, and foreseeable result of Defendants’ fraud they caused 

Plaintiff injuries.

PUNITIVE DAMAGES ALLEGATIONS

150. Plaintiffs adopt and restate the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

151. The acts, conduct and omissions of Defendants, as alleged throughout the

Complaint were willful and malicious. Defendants committed these acts with a conscious 

disregard for the rights and safety of Plaintiffs and other consumers and for the primary purpose

Case 0:22-cv-61411-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/04/2021 Page 25 of 28
26

of increasing Defendants’ profits from the sale and distribution of its product. Defendants’

outrageous and unconscionable conduct warrants an award of exemplary and punitive damages

against Defendants in an amount appropriate to punish and make an example of Defendants.

152. Prior to the manufacturing, sale, and distribution of its product, Defendants knew 

that said drywall or sheetrock was in a defective condition as previously described herein and knew 

that those consumers or homeowners would experience and did experience damages due to the 

corrosive off-gassing. Further, Defendants, through their officers, directors, managers, and agents, 

knew that the drywall or sheetrock presented a substantial and unreasonable risk of harm to

Plaintiffs or other consumers and Defendants unreasonably subjected all consumers of said drywall 

or sheetrock to risk of injury or damages.

153. Despite their knowledge, Defendants, acting through their officers, directors and 

managing agents, for the purpose of enhancing Defendants’ profits, knowingly and deliberately 

failed to remedy the known defects in their drywall and failed to warn the public, including 

Plaintiffs of the extreme risk of injury occasioned by said defects inherent in the defective drywall 

or sheetrock. Defendants and their agents, officers, and directors intentionally proceeded with the 

manufacturing, sale, distribution, and marketing of drywall or sheetrock knowing these actions 

would expose persons to damages in order to advance Defendants’ pecuniary interest and 

monetary profits.

154. Defendants’ conduct was so contemptible that it would be looked down upon and 

despised by ordinary decent people, and was carried on by Defendants with willful and conscious 

disregard for the safety of Plaintiffs and other consumers, entitling Plaintiffs to exemplary 

damages.

EQUITABLE AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 0:22-cv-61411-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/04/2021 Page 26 of 28
27

155. Plaintiffs adopt and restate the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

156. Plaintiffs are without adequate remedy at law, rendering injunctive and other 

equitable relief appropriate.

157. Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm if the Court does not render the injunctive 

relief as set forth herein, and if Defendants are not ordered to recall, rescind, and/or repair the 

homes and structures owned by Plaintiffs.

158. Plaintiffs demand injunctive and equitable relief and further, that Defendants be 

ordered to: (1) remediate, repair and/or replace the drywall in the homes and structures upon proof 

by the Defendants of the feasibility of such remedy or repair; (2) cease and desist from 

misrepresenting to the general public that there is no defect in, or danger associated with the 

drywall; and, (3) institute, at their own cost, a public awareness campaign to alert the general 

public of the defect and dangers associated with their defective drywall.

159. Until Defendants’ defective drywall has been removed and Plaintiffs’ homes are 

properly remediated, Defendants should provide continued environmental and air monitoring in 

the homes and structures.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated 

demand upon Defendants jointly and severally for:

a. Compensatory damages;

b. Statutory damages;

c. Punitive damages;

d. Pre and post-judgment interest as allowed by law;

e. Injunctive relief;

Case 0:22-cv-61411-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/04/2021 Page 27 of 28
28

f. An award of attorney’s fees as allowed by law;

g. An award of taxable costs; and

h. Any and all such further relief as this Court deems just and proper.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury as to all issues so triable as a matter of right.

/s/ James V. Doyle

James V. Doyle (Fla. Bar No. 121505)

DOYLE LAW FIRM, PC

2100 Southbridge Pkwy., Suite 650

Birmingham, AL 35209

Tele: 205-533-9500 

Fax: 844-638-5812

Jim.doyle@doylefirm.com

Attorney for Plaintiffs

Case 0:22-cv-61411-RAR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/04/2021 Page 28 of 28