IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

PAUL F. BOHN AND BRIDGET B. BOHN,

on behalf of themselves and all others similarly

situated,

 Court File No:

Plaintiffs,

 (JURY TRIAL DEMANDED)

vs.

ZURN PEX, INC and ZURN INDUSTRIES, LLC,

formerly known as ZURN INDUSTRIES, INC.

_____________________________________________________________________________/

MCALPINE & ASSOCIATES

Mark L. McAlpine (P35583)

Attorney of Record

Marcus R. Sanborn (69565)

3201 University Drive

Auburn Hills, MI 48326

(248) 373-3700

LARSON · KING, LLP

Shawn M. Raiter 

T. Joseph Snodgrass 

2800 Wells Fargo Place

30 East 7th Street

St. Paul, MN 55101

(651)312-6500

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and

The Putative Class 

_____________________________________________________________________________/

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs Paul F. Bohn and Bridget B. Bohn, on behalf of themselves and all others 

similarly situated, by and through their undersigned counsel, bring this Complaint in class action 

and state and allege as follows:

Case 2:09-cv-13515-JAC-MJH Document 1 Filed 09/04/2009 Page 1 of 33
2

THE PLAINTIFFS

1. Plaintiffs and putative class representatives Paul F. Bohn and Bridget B. Bohn 

are husband and wife and are residents of and the owners of property in Hanburg Township, 

Michigan.

2. Plaintiffs and putative class representatives bring this case on behalf of

themselves and a class of similarly situated persons and entities in the State of Michigan. 

THE DEFENDANTS

3. Defendant Zurn Pex, Inc. is a privately-held foreign entity that is in the business, 

among other things, of advertising, warranting, manufacturing, selling and servicing plumbing 

components.

4. On information and belief, Zurn Pex, Inc. has its principal place of business in 

Texas.

5. Zurn Pex, Inc. is responsible for some or all of the acts and omissions alleged 

herein.

6. Defendant Zurn Industries, LLC is a privately-held foreign entity that is in the 

business, among other things, of advertising, warranting, manufacturing, selling and servicing 

plumbing components. Zurn Industries, LLC is the successor entity to Zurn Industries, Inc.

7. On information and belief, Zurn Industries, LLC has its principle place of

business in Pennsylvania.

8. Zurn Industries, LLC is responsible for some or all of the acts and omissions 

alleged herein. 

9. Zurn Pex, Inc. and Zurn Industries, LLC have acted in concert with each other 

with the respect to the actions and omissions alleged herein.

Case 2:09-cv-13515-JAC-MJH Document 1 Filed 09/04/2009 Page 2 of 33
3

10. At various times in marketing and advertising, in addressing quality control

issues, warranty issues, manufacturing issues and legal issues associated with the subject matter 

of this Complaint, Defendants have used literature and correspondence that reference “Zurn Pex, 

Inc.”, “Zurn Industries, Inc.”, “Zurn Plumbing Products Group”, “Qest, Inc. a division of Zurn 

Industries, Inc.” and “Zurn Industries, Inc. Qest Operations.” 

11. The products at issue are advertised at websites with URL addresses www.

Zurn.com and www.zurnpex.com.

12. “Qest, Inc.” and “Qest Operations” are not separate legal entities but were merely 

trade names used by Defendants.

13. “Zurn Plumbing Products Group” is not a separate legal entity. Rather, “Zurn 

Plumbing Products Group” is a trade name used by Zurn Industries, LLC and Zurn Pex, Inc.

14. Zurn Pex, Inc. and Zurn Industries, LLC are jointly and/or severally liable to 

Plaintiffs and the putative class members as joint venturers, or in the alternative, operate such 

that any pretend corporate formalities amongst and between the two should be disregarded or 

pierced, or in the alternative, are subject to an agency relationship, or in the alternative, are 

subject to predecessor and successor liability theories, or in the alternative, are otherwise jointly 

and severally liable for all acts and omissions alleged herein.

15. Throughout the remainder of this Complaint, Zurn Pex, Inc. and Zurn Industries, 

LLC and their respective predecessors will be collectively referred to as “Zurn.”

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

16. This Court has jurisdiction over the parties, the putative class, and the causes of 

action asserted herein pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

Case 2:09-cv-13515-JAC-MJH Document 1 Filed 09/04/2009 Page 3 of 33
4

17. Venue in this forum is proper in that the putative class representatives reside in 

Michigan, the putative class members reside in Michigan, the causes of action for the class 

representatives arose, in part, in Michigan, the causes of action for putative class members arose, 

in part, in Michigan, and Zurn transacts business within Michigan. 

18. Upon information and belief, there are at least twelve other class actions pending 

concerning the subject matter of this Complaint. 

SUMMARY OF CLASS ACTION

19. Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated bring 

this action for and on behalf of the owners of homes and buildings with Zurn plumbing systems

with cross-linked polyethylene (“Pex”) tubing. These systems are defective. 

20. Plaintiffs and the putative class members have been damaged as a result of the 

design, development, advertisement, marketing, sale and warranty misconduct of Zurn in

connection with Zurn Pex plumbing systems installed with Zurn’s brass insert fittings. 

21. Zurn has used different names for its brass insert fittings since 1997, including 

referring to them as “QestPEX Crimp System,” “Qicksert fittings,” and “Qick/Sert insert

fittings” (hereinafter referred to as “brass insert fittings”).

22. Zurn has sold brass insert fittings for its Pex plumbing systems in Michigan and 

in each of the United States. 

23. Zurn warrants and advertises that its brass insert fittings provide “a worry free” 

plumbing system.

24. Zurn warrants and advertises that, with its brass insert fittings, “you can rest 

assured that your new plumbing . . . system will provide a lifetime of reliable service.” 

Case 2:09-cv-13515-JAC-MJH Document 1 Filed 09/04/2009 Page 4 of 33
5

25. Zurn warrants and advertises its brass insert fittings as having a 25-year warranty 

that expressly covers consequential damages arising from leaks or failures in the plumbing 

system. 

26. Zurn’s brass insert fittings, however, are defectively designed and manufactured 

and have prematurely failed to the point of leaking – sometimes only weeks after being put into 

service.

27. Testing has shown that Zurn’s brass insert fittings have cracks and manufacturing 

defects that are present before the fittings are even put into service.

28. The failures of the Zurn brass insert fittings have and will in the future cause

water leaks. These leaks have and will in turn cause extensive damage to other property

including the homes and personal property of the owners. 

29. The foregoing types of damages arising from Zurn’s defective brass insert

fittings are reasonably foreseeable at the time of design and manufacture of the brass insert

fittings.

30. The foregoing types of damages are reasonably foreseeable at the time of sale of 

the brass insert fittings.

31. Thousands of Zurn’s brass insert fittings have prematurely to the point of

leaking, some within only weeks of installation. 

32. The foregoing brass fitting failures have included premature failures in the State 

of Michigan.

33. After convincing consumers to purchase the Zurn brass insert fittings based in 

part on the 25-year warranty, Zurn now refuses to honor the warranty because the failures are 

allegedly not “covered in [Zurn’s] cost structure.” 

Case 2:09-cv-13515-JAC-MJH Document 1 Filed 09/04/2009 Page 5 of 33
6

34. Plaintiffs and the putative class members seek damages arising from and

proximately caused by Zurn’s breach of consumer protection statutes, fraud and

misrepresentations, negligence, breach of contract and breach of warranties. Plaintiffs and the 

putative class members also seek declaratory and injunctive relief, as described below.

DEFINITION OF PROPOSED CLASSES

35. Plaintiffs bring this class action on behalf of themselves and all others similarly 

situated, for all claims alleged herein, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure. The first proposed class is defined as:

All persons and entities that own a structure located within the State of Michigan

that contains a Zurn Pex plumbing system with brass insert fittings. The proposed 

class includes, without limitation, all such persons or entities who contacted Zurn

or its representatives about their Zurn Pex plumbing system and were denied or

partially denied warranty coverage for failure of the Zurn Pex plumbing system 

based on a claim that “corrosion” was not covered by the warranty or that other 

alleged warranty limitations applied. 

36. Plaintiffs specifically exclude Zurn or its related entities from the putative class, 

all subsidiaries or affiliates of Zurn; any entity in which Zurn has a controlling interest; and any 

and all of Zurn’s employees, affiliates, legal representatives, heirs, successors or assignees.

37. Plaintiffs also specifically exclude from the putative class any person or entity 

that has previously commenced and concluded a lawsuit against Zurn arising out of the subject 

matter of this lawsuit.

38. Plaintiffs also specifically exclude from the putative class the judge assigned to 

this case and any member of the judge’s immediate family.

39. Plaintiffs specifically include in the putative class the claims of all persons or 

entities, like insurance companies, that have paid for the repair, replacement and / or damage 

caused by prematurely failed Zurn brass insert fittings.

Case 2:09-cv-13515-JAC-MJH Document 1 Filed 09/04/2009 Page 6 of 33
7

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Zurn Pex Plumbing Background

40. Zurn is the manufacturer and seller of various plumbing products including Pex 

plumbing materials. 

41. Pex is an acronym for cross-linked polyethylene. Polyethylene is the raw

material and the "X" in the generic name “Pex” refers to the cross-linking of the polyethylene 

across its molecular chains.

42. For decades, plumbers and homeowners have used copper piping for potable 

water plumbing systems.

43. Copper is and has been accepted by virtually all plumbing codes throughout the 

United States.

44. In the 1990’s, manufacturers in the United States began selling and plumbers 

began installing potable water plumbing systems with tubing made from polybutylene plastic.

45. Zurn was a manufacturer, seller and distributor of plumbing systems using tubing 

made from polybutylene plastic.

46. Plumbing systems using tubing made from polybutylene plastic were touted by 

manufacturers as being easier to install, cheaper and longer-lasting than copper plumbing 

systems.

47. Polybutylene plumbing systems quickly proved to be poorly conceived, designed 

and manufactured systems. 

48. Those polybutylene systems began to fail prematurely in the field causing

substantial property damage. 

Case 2:09-cv-13515-JAC-MJH Document 1 Filed 09/04/2009 Page 7 of 33
8

49. A substantial amount of litigation ensued as a result of the widespread, premature 

failure of polybutylene plumbing systems. 

50. Several class actions were filed and settlements in those cases exceeded $1.25

billion dollars.

51. Zurn’s predecessor, U.S. Brass, filed bankruptcy because of its liability for

failing polybutylene plumbing systems.

52. At least in part in response to the failure of polybutylene plumbing systems, 

virtually all manufacturers ceased manufacturing polybutylene plumbing systems for sale in the 

United States. In addition, most plumbing codes eventually prohibited the installation of

polybutylene plumbing systems.

53. In recent years, Zurn and other manufacturers developed alternative, non-copper 

plumbing products. 

54. Specifically, Zurn designed, manufactured and marketed a plumbing system 

using Pex tubing for use in residential and commercial settings.

55. Zurn and other manufacturers of Pex plumbing products have touted Pex

plumbing systems as being easier to install, cheaper and longer-lasting than copper plumbing 

systems.

56. In recent years, more plumbing state and local plumbing codes have allowed for 

the installation of Pex plumbing products in addition to copper piping.

57. Installation of Pex plumbing systems, however, remains prohibited in certain 

areas of the United States. 

Case 2:09-cv-13515-JAC-MJH Document 1 Filed 09/04/2009 Page 8 of 33
9

Zurn Pex Brass Insert Fittings

58. Zurn’s Pex plumbing system uses a crimp or stainless steel clamp connection 

design in which insert fittings made of brass alloy are inserted into the Pex tubing. The brass 

fittings are secured by using a special tool that crimps copper rings or stainless steel clamps 

around the outside of the tubing, which in turn, creates a seal between the Pex tubing and the 

brass fittings.

59. The crimp system design chosen by Zurn for its Pex plumbing systems places a 

great deal of stress on the brass insert fittings once the system is assembled as intended.

60. The design, choice of material and manufacturing methods of the Zurn brass 

insert fittings also result in residual stress on the fittings following the manufacturing process but 

before the system is assembled in the field.

61. Zurn was negligent in its design and manufacture of the brass insert fittings for a 

number of reasons, including Zurn’s choice of high zinc content brass alloy as the material used 

for the fittings.

62. Zurn knew or should have known that the brass alloy it chose for the brass insert

fittings made the fittings susceptible to premature failure through various processes like

dezincification and stress corrosion cracking.

63. Zurn knew or should have known that its crimp fitting design, Pex system design, 

and choice of brass alloy also made the brass insert fittings susceptible to premature failure 

through stress corrosion cracking.

64. Zurn knew or should have known that the manufacturing process used for the 

brass insert fittings left residual stress and machining imperfections that would cause premature 

failure. 

Case 2:09-cv-13515-JAC-MJH Document 1 Filed 09/04/2009 Page 9 of 33
10

65. Zurn’s design, materials choices, and manufacturing practices have created a 

product that is damaged and begins to fail on its first day of use, even if perfectly installed in its 

intended environment.

66. Testing has also shown that Zurn’s design, materials choices, and manufacturing 

practices have created a product that is damaged and cracked even before it is installed in its 

intended environment.

67. Because of their defective design and manufacture, Zurn’s brass insert fittings 

failed in their intended purpose. 

68. Because of their defective design and manufacture, Zurn’s brass insert fittings are 

inherently defective and are substantially certain to fail within the 25 year express warranty

provided by Zurn and / or the useful life of the fittings.

69. Class members own Zurn Pex plumbing systems with brass insert fittings that 

have already or are in the process of failing prematurely and thus have suffered or are reasonably 

certain to suffer actua l injury well in advance of the warranted and expected life of their

plumbing systems.

Inadequate Testing of Zurn Brass Insert Fittings

70. Zurn did not test the brass insert fittings in their anticipated environments before 

selling those fittings to the public.

71. In an effort to save time and money, Zurn did not end use test the brass insert

fittings in Pex plumbing systems and instead used various assumptions when choosing the

design and materials for this system. Such a practice violates engineering and manufacturing 

standards and accepted practice.

Case 2:09-cv-13515-JAC-MJH Document 1 Filed 09/04/2009 Page 10 of 33
11

72. Zurn also conducted inadequate testing on its brass insert fittings and failed to 

test things that it knew or should have known would lead to premature failure of the brass

fittings.

73. Zurn also failed to investigate or test whether well-known and expected water 

conditions would lead to prema ture failure of the brass insert fittings and has admitted that it 

performed virtually no testing to determine how the fittings would perform when placed into 

potable water service.

False Advertising of Zurn Pex plumbing systems

74. Zurn falsely advertised that the Pex plumbing system – including its brass insert 

fitting components -- was reliable despite never testing and determining the reliability of its 

product when used in real world conditions.

75. Zurn holds itself out as a “proven leader in the plumbing industry” and as a 

manufacturer of reliable plumbing products.

76. Zurn also advertises itself as being “the time tested and proven leader in the 

flexible plumbing industry.”

77. Among other false and inaccurate representations of its Pex plumbing systems 

with brass insert fittings, Zurn falsely advertised and represented that the system “resists mineral 

buildup, rust, corrosion, and electrolysis,” had “No exotic parts to fail,” and made “More 

positive connections, quicker, easier.”

78. Zurn also falsely represented its QestPEX Crimp System as “utilizes high quality 

brass fittings and copper crimp rings to provide a connection which is stronger than the pipe 

itself” and that “When properly installed, the QestPEX Crimp System is a worry free system!”

Case 2:09-cv-13515-JAC-MJH Document 1 Filed 09/04/2009 Page 11 of 33
12

79. Zurn also falsely represented that owners of its Pex plumbing systems “can rest 

assured that your new plumbing . . . system will provide a lifetime of reliable service.” 

80. Zurn falsely advertises its brass fitting system as “the most time tested and

reliable fitting system available.”

81. Zurn also falsely advertises that its brass insert fittings “are actually stronger than 

the pipe itself and once crimped, they cannot be pulled apart or blown out.” 

82. Zurn also falsely advertises that its brass insert fittings and ease of installation 

will provide “perfect connections every time, giving you a plumbing system that will be worry 

free for a lifetime.”

83. Zurn also falsely marketed its Pex plumbing systems as being safe, reliable, and 

corrosion-resistant.

84. Zurn also falsely marketed its Pex plumbing systems as being proven, time-tested 

and worry free.

85. Zurn also falsely marketed and warranted its Pex plumbing systems as being 

extensively tested, and that based on the results of those tests, the Pex plumbing system and its 

brass insert fittings were properly designed, developed, marketed, and manufactured so as to 

perform adequately, reliably and as represented.

86. Zurn also falsely marketed and warranted that its Pex plumbing systems were 

superior to copper plumbing systems.

87. Zurn also falsely marketed and warranted that its Pex plumbing systems and the 

brass insert fittings were of superior design and materials than similar products made by

competitors.

Case 2:09-cv-13515-JAC-MJH Document 1 Filed 09/04/2009 Page 12 of 33
13

88. Zurn and its authorized agents and distributors made each of the above described 

assertions, statements, representations and warranties with the intent and purpose of inducing 

plumbing suppliers, builders, plumbers, and consumers to purchase and install Zurn Pex

plumbing systems and its brass insert fittings in their properties in Michigan and elsewhere.

89. Zurn also made numerous material omissions and uniformly withheld important 

information relating to the design, reliability and performance of its brass insert fittings and Pex 

plumbing systems.

90. Had Zurn not withheld and omitted important information about the design,

reliability and performance of its brass insert fittings and Pex plumbing systems, Plaintiffs and 

the members of the putative class would not have purchased those products.

Field Failures of Zurn Pex Plumbing systems

91. By 1999 at the latest, Zurn received notice from the field that its brass insert

fittings were failing prematurely.

92. Zurn brass insert fittings have failed prematurely in numerous locations

throughout the United States, including Michigan.

93. In some parts of the country, the number of Zurn brass insert fittings that have 

failed prematurely has caused Zurn to either stop selling the products completely in the state or 

to advise plumbers to use a different type of fitting.

94. By July 1, 2005, Zurn had admitted that “the majority of fittings that are cracking 

are tees and elbows.” 

95. By July 1, 2005, Zurn had admitted that “the majority of these fittings are

cracking from inside the wall cavity of the fittings.”

Case 2:09-cv-13515-JAC-MJH Document 1 Filed 09/04/2009 Page 13 of 33
14

96. As but one example of the high number of premature failures, one plumbing 

company alone had reported over 150 failures of Zurn brass insert fittings by the end of 2006. 

Because of the unacceptable rate of premature failure, that plumbing company stopped using 

Zurn’s Pex plumbing systems and brass crimp fittings and switched to a competitor’s product. 

The competitor’s product has performed well without failure in the same installation area.

97. In part because of the premature failures of its brass insert fittings, Zurn has 

issued a corporate directive to stop selling brass fittings and sell only its plastic fittings.

98. In recognition of the problems with its choice of high zinc content brass, Zurn 

chose different metal alloys for use in its latest Pex plumbing fittings.

Competitors’ Use of Different Product Materials and Designs

99. Several of Zurn’s competitors in the Pex plumbing market chose designs and 

materials that are much more resistant to the premature failure problems that have plagued the 

Zurn Pex brass insert fittings.

100. For example, some of Zurn’s competitors in the Pex plumbing market chose 

fitting and assembly designs that exert less stress on the fittings than the Zurn Pex brass insert

fittings.

101. Some of Zurn’s competitors in the Pex plumbing market chose fitting materials 

like copper, bronze and plastic, which are less susceptible to premature failure than Zurn’s brass 

insert fittings.

Plaintiffs’ Circumstances

102. Plaintiffs Paul F. Bohn and Bridget B. Bohn purchased a Zurn Pex plumbing 

system through Ferguson Enterprises and hired a licensed plumber to install the system in their 

home located in Hanburg, Michigan.

Case 2:09-cv-13515-JAC-MJH Document 1 Filed 09/04/2009 Page 14 of 33
15

103. Less than two years after installation, one of the Zurn brass insert fittings failed 

at the Bohn home causing water damage to property other than the Pex plumbing system.

104. Later, another Zurn brass insert fitting failed at the Bohn home causing water 

damage to property other than the Pex plumbing system. Other fittings have subsequently been 

found to be damaged and leaking.

105. Because of the fear that another Zurn fitting would fail at any time and without 

any notice, Plaintiffs paid to have all Zurn fittings in their home removed and replaced. 

Plaintiffs have sustained substantial out of pocket expense to replace the defective Zurn fittings. 

106. Plaintiffs, like many class members, have already suffered out-of-pocket damage 

to repair their home following the premature failures of the Zurn Pex brass insert fittings. 

Likewise, all putative class members have incurred or are reasonably certain to incur, the cost of 

repairing their homes because of fittings failures and / or prematurely replacing their plumbing 

systems. 

107. Plaintiffs and the proposed class members suffered general and specific

compensatory and contractual damages including, without limitation consequential, incidental, 

loss of use, diminution of value, attorneys’ fees, costs and disbursements.

Zurn’s Warranty Misconduct 

108. Plaintiffs Paul F. Bohn and Bridget B. Bohn presented a warranty claim to Zurn 

for the damage caused by the premature failure of the brass insert fittings.

109. Through its representatives, Zurn has denied the warranty claim and alleged that 

the failure of the Zurn brass insert fittings at the Bohn home was not covered by Zurn’s 25-year 

warranty.

Case 2:09-cv-13515-JAC-MJH Document 1 Filed 09/04/2009 Page 15 of 33
16

110. Zurn denied the Bohn warranty claim because of alleged limitations and

disclaimers Zurn contended were part of its warranty.

111. Zurn rejected the Bohn warranty claim on the purported basis that the premature 

failure of the Zurn Pex brass insert fittings was caused by “aggressive” or “corrosive” water.

112. Pursuant to uniform company policy, Zurn provided false, deceptive, misleading 

and fraudulent information to consumers with failed Zurn Pex plumbing systems by advising 

them that the Zurn warranty was subject to vague and ambiguous limitations about “corrosive 

water conditions.”

113. To this day, Zurn cannot define what the phrase “corrosive water conditions”

means and yet uniformly concludes that failures of its brass insert fittings are caused by water 

conditions that it cannot define.

114. In response to the claims of its customers, Zurn has adopted a uniform company 

policy not to pay customers their full measure of damages.

115. Zurn’s attorneys and corporate executives were aware of this misconduct and 

condoned the misconduct because the flood of warranty claims Zurn has received were not 

included in Zurn’s “cost structure” for these systems.

116. Beginning in at least 1999, Zurn became aware through various claims and 

reports that the brass insert fittings that it was manufacturing, distributing and advertising were

subject to premature failures, problems and deterioration. 

117. Despite the fact that Zurn knew its product was defective and that its system 

would not perform as advertised, warranted or otherwise expressly represented, Zurn continued 

to sell the product to the public without correction and, in fact, concealed from the public the fact 

Case 2:09-cv-13515-JAC-MJH Document 1 Filed 09/04/2009 Page 16 of 33
17

that its Pex system and brass insert fittings were defective, not durable and would begin to fail 

immediately upon being placed into service. 

118. Because the Zurn Pex plumbing system related to the habitability of persons’ 

homes, Zurn had a duty to the consumer and to the public to disclose the defective nature of its 

system and not to conceal and suppress the defective nature of the product from Plaintiffs and 

the putative class members.

119. Zurn, however, has engaged in a scheme to cover up the true nature of the

problem with its brass insert fittings and plumbing systems. 

120. Consistent with the usage in the plumbing trade, Zurn originally covered and 

paid warranty claims for the premature failures of its brass insert fittings but, after realizing the 

magnitude of the problem, began denying the warranty claims blaming the premature failures on 

“aggressive” or “corrosive” water. 

121. Zurn knew the cause of the premature failures was not “aggressive” or

“corrosive” water and has fraudulently concealed and suppressed from Plaintiffs and the putative 

class the true nature of the problems with the Zurn plumbing and brass insert fitting system.

122. To this day, Zurn continues in this pattern of concealment and suppression by 

deliberately and knowingly misrepresenting to the public the true nature of the problems with the 

brass insert fittings. In fact, many members of the putative class are still unaware that their 

plumbing system is prematurely failing and will continue to fail due to its design and 

manufacturing defects.

SATISFACTION OF CLASS PREREQUISITES

123. This class action satisfies numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy and

superiority requirements for maintaining a class.

Case 2:09-cv-13515-JAC-MJH Document 1 Filed 09/04/2009 Page 17 of 33
18

124. Numerosity. Pursuant to Rule 23(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 

the putative class “is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.” The number of 

members of the putative class is believed to be tens of thousands of individuals and/or entities 

that own properties with Zurn Pex plumbing systems with brass insert fittings.

125. In the State of Michigan alone, Zurn has reportedly sold more than 3.9 million 

brass insert fittings since 2000. Joinder of the persons and entities into whose properties the 

Zurn Pex plumbing systems were installed is impractical and not feasible.

126. Commonality. Pursuant to Rule 23(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, the putative class shares “questions of law or fact” that predominate and

individualized issues. The common questions include, but are not limited to, the following:

• Were Zurn’s brass insert fittings defectively designed for their intended

application?

• If so, what is the nature of the design defect?

• Were Zurn’s brass insert fittings defectively manufactured?

• Did Zurn fail to warn consumers that the brass insert fittings were not properly 

tested during design and development process?

• Did Zurn adequately warn consumers about any types of installations that may 

cause premature failure of the brass insert fittings? 

• Did Zurn make fraudulent, false, deceptive and/or misleading statements in

connection with the sale of Zurn Pex plumbing systems in its product literature, 

including those relating to standards and reliability?

• Did Zurn omit material information when it sold its Pex plumbing systems and 

brass insert fittings?

• Did Zurn properly account for foreseeable variations in installation in the

development and design of the Zurn Pex plumbing system and brass insert

fittings?

• Did Zurn exercise reasonable care in the design, manufacture and testing of the 

Zurn Pex plumbing system and brass insert fittings?

Case 2:09-cv-13515-JAC-MJH Document 1 Filed 09/04/2009 Page 18 of 33
19

• Are the brass insert fittings progressively deteriorating at an accelerated rate?

• Will the brass insert fittings fail prematurely?

• Did Zurn deliberately sell or allow brass insert fittings to be distributed after it 

knew the fittings were failing at an increased rate?

• Did Zurn engage in fraudulent, false, deceptive and/or misleading misconduct 

with respect to the handling of warranty claims?

• What categories of damages are recoverable for owners of structures with Zurn 

Pex plumbing systems and brass insert fittings, e.g., replacement, consequential, 

incidental or other damages?

• Are the Plaintiffs entitled to relief under Zurn’s express warranty?

• Can the class obtain a declaration concerning the types and categories of damages 

and remedies available to putative class members?

• Should Zurn be enjoined from denying warranty claims based on alleged warranty 

disclaimers or limitations?

• Are Plaintiffs’ claims barred in whole or in part by any of Zurn’s affirmative 

defenses? 

127. Typicality. Pursuant to Rule 23(a)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 

the claims of the putative class representatives, Plaintiffs, “are typical of the claims ... of the 

class.” Plaintiffs and all members of the putative class who own Zurn’s defective Pex plumbing 

systems with brass insert fittings have suffered damages as a result of Zurn’s wrongful acts and 

misconduct. Pursuant to corporate directives, Zurn engaged in a similar pattern of misconduct 

towards both the Plaintiffs and all the other putative class members.

128. Adequacy. Pursuant to Rule 23(a)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 

the putative class representatives “will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.” 

Plaintiffs have no adverse interests to the putative class members. Plaintiffs were sold a

plumbing system with defective brass insert fittings. Plaintiffs have retained lawyers who have 

substantial resources, experience and success in the prosecution and defense of class action, 

Case 2:09-cv-13515-JAC-MJH Document 1 Filed 09/04/2009 Page 19 of 33
20

mass tort and complex litigation, and the insurance coverage and settlement issues attendant to 

the same. 

129. Superiority. Pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 

a class action is a superior method of resolving this action for the following reasons: A class 

action in this instance conserves the resources of the putative class, Zurn and the Court. The 

damages of most putative class members are not, in isolation, significant enough to hire an

attorney on a contingency basis, and the burden and expense of hiring an attorney on a per diem 

basis for Plaintiffs and most putative class members, makes it difficult if not impossible for the 

class members to seek redress. On information and belief, no Attorney General of any state has 

brought an enforcement action against Zurn to remedy the claims asserted herein.

Because the nature of the claims involved, the class members need swift and uniform 

resolution of their claims before additional damage is caused by failures. Zurn has been

uniformly refusing to pay Plaintiffs and the putative class members their full damages. 

Further, there may or will be other cases pending against Zurn. Serial adjudications in 

numerous venues is not efficient, timely, or proper. Judicial resources throughout Michigan and 

the United States will be unnecessarily depleted by resolution of individual claims. Joinder on 

an individual basis of thousands of claimants in any one suit would be impractical or impossible.

Individualized judgments and rulings could result in inconsistent relief for similarly situated 

plaintiffs. Individualized lawsuits could also establish incompatible standards of conduct for 

Zurn in creating, marketing, sale and post-sale conduct in connection with Zurn’s Pex plumbing

systems and brass insert fittings.

Case 2:09-cv-13515-JAC-MJH Document 1 Filed 09/04/2009 Page 20 of 33
21

COUNT I

(NEGLIGENCE)

130. Plaintiffs and the putative class members reallege the foregoing paragraphs,

inclusive, as though fully set forth herein.

131. Zurn was negligent in that it failed to use reasonable care when it created,

marketed and sold its Pex plumbing system with brass insert fittings.

132. As the manufacturer of consumer products, Zurn owed a duty to Plaintiffs and 

the putative class members to provide a safe and quality product, and a duty to provide a product 

that would perform as it was advertised. Zurn breached those duties.

133. That as a direct and proximate result of Zurn’s negligence, lack of care, and other 

wrongful acts, Plaintiffs and the putative class members sustained and will sustain damages.

134. As a result of Zurn’s negligence, Plaintiffs and the putative class have suffered 

actual damages in that they have purchased and installed in their homes and structures a 

plumbing system that is defective and is damaged upon its initial use.

135. As a result of Zurn’s negligence, Plaintiffs and the putative class will suffer 

damages that include not only the full cost to replace brass insert fittings and plumbing systems, 

but also include, without limitation, consequential and incidental damages. 

136. That as a direct, proximate and foreseeable result of Zurn’s negligence, Plaintiffs 

and the putative class members have been damaged, in the aggregate, in an amount to be 

determined at trial.

137. Plaintiffs therefore request that this Court enter judgment in their favor against 

Zurn in an amount sufficient to compensate Plaintiffs for all damages arising from Zurn’s 

Case 2:09-cv-13515-JAC-MJH Document 1 Filed 09/04/2009 Page 21 of 33
22

negligence, including incidental and consequential damages, interest, costs, attorney fees and 

such other and further relief as the Court deems appropriate. 

COUNT II

(BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTIES) (MCL 440.2313)

138. Plaintiffs and the putative class members re-allege the foregoing paragraphs,

inclusive, as though fully set forth herein.

139. Zurn made certain express warranties to distributors, plumbers and consumers

about the goods it would provide. 

140. The express warranties provided by Zurn included warranties that Zurn would 

provide properly designed and manufactured plumbing systems and a 25-year warranty on such 

systems. Zurn also made numerous other express warranties as previously set forth in this 

Complaint.

141. Plumbing distributors, plumbers, Plaintiffs and the putative class members relied 

upon Zurn’s express warranties. 

142. Zurn breached such express warranties by providing defective plumbing systems 

that have or are reasonably certain to fail well before the 25 year warranty or useful life of the 

system. Zurn also breached its warranties to Plaintiffs and the putative class by refusing to honor 

its express warranties when presented with claims and damage covered by the terms of the 

warranty. 

143. Zurn also breached such express warranties by attempting to avoid paying

warranty claims by invoking provisions of the warranties it knew were vague, ambiguous and 

unenforceable. Among those vague, ambiguous and unenforceable provisions is the term

“corrosive water conditions” that Zurn itself, to this day, cannot define.

Case 2:09-cv-13515-JAC-MJH Document 1 Filed 09/04/2009 Page 22 of 33
23

144. As a result of Zurn’s breach of warranties, Plaintiffs and the putative class have 

suffered actual damages in that they have purchased and installed in their homes and structures a 

plumbing system that is defective and is damaged upon its initial use.

145. As a result of Zurn’s breach of warranties, Plaintiffs and the putative class will 

suffer damages that include not only the full cost to replace brass insert fittings and plumbing 

systems, but also include, without limitation, consequential and incidental damages. 

146. That as a direct, proximate and foreseeable result of Zurn’s breach of warranties, 

Plaintiffs and the putative class members have been damaged, in the aggregate, in an amount to 

be determined at trial.

147. Plaintiffs therefore request that this Court enter judgment in their favor against 

Zurn in an amount sufficient to compensate Plaintiffs for all damages arising from the breaches 

of warranty, including incidental and consequential damages, interest, costs, attorney fees and 

such other and further relief as the Court deems appropriate. 

COUNT III

 (BREACH OF WARRANTY FOR CONTRACT GOODS) (MCL 440.2314)

148. Plaintiffs and the putative class members reallege the foregoing paragraphs,

inclusive, as though fully set forth herein.

149. The Pex plumbing system sold by Zurn to Plaintiffs was subject to an implied 

warranty of merchantability.

150. The Pex plumbing system Zurn provided to Plaintiffs does not pass in the trade 

under the description set forth in the sales contract and literature.

Case 2:09-cv-13515-JAC-MJH Document 1 Filed 09/04/2009 Page 23 of 33
24

151. The Pex plumbing system was and is not of fair average quality within the

description set forth in the sales contract and literature or in the other materials and information 

provided by Zurn to Plaintiffs and their representatives.

152. The Pex plumbing system sold by Zurn to Plaintiffs was and is not fit for the 

ordinary purposes for which it was and is used.

153. The Pex plumbing system did and does not conform to the promises and

affirmations of fact set forth in the sales contract and in the other materials and information 

provided by Zurn to Plaintiffs and their representatives.

154. As a result of Zurn’s breach of implied warranties, Plaintiffs and the putative 

class have suffered actual damages in that they have purchased and installed in their homes and 

structures a plumbing system that is defective and is damaged upon its initial use.

155. As a result of Zurn’s breach of implied warranties, Plaintiffs and the putative 

class will suffer damages that include not only the full cost to replace brass insert fittings and 

plumbing systems, but also include, without limitation, consequential and incidental damages. 

156. That as a direct, proximate and foreseeable result of Zurn’s breach of implied 

warranties, Plaintiffs and the putative class members have been damaged, in the aggregate, in an 

amount to be determined at trial.

157. Plaintiffs therefore request that this Court enter judgment in their favor against 

Zurn in an amount sufficient to compensate Plaintiffs for all damages arising from the breaches 

of implied warranty, including incidental and consequential damages, interest, costs, attorney 

fees and such other and further relief as the Court deems appropriate. 

Case 2:09-cv-13515-JAC-MJH Document 1 Filed 09/04/2009 Page 24 of 33
25

COUNT IV

(BREACH OF WARRANTY OF FITNESS FOR PARTICULAR PURPOSE) 

(MCL 440.2315)

158. Plaintiffs and the putative class members reallege the foregoing paragraphs,

inclusive, as though fully set forth herein.

159. The Pex plumbing system sold by Zurn to Plaintiffs was subject to an implied 

warranty of fitness for a particular purpose.

160. Zurn was a merchant with respect to goods of the kind of the Pex plumbing 

system. Zurn knew and had reason to know of the particular purpose for which the Pex

plumbing system was required and that Plaintiffs and their representatives relied on Zurn’s skill 

and judgment to select and furnish suitable goods.

161. The Pex plumbing system was and is not fit for the particular purpose for which 

it was and is required by Plaintiffs and members of the putative class.

162. As a foreseeable, direct and/or proximate result of Zurn’s breaches of the

warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, Plaintiffs have incurred and continue to incur 

damages, including but not limited to the damage caused by the leaking fittings and the cost to 

replace all Zurn brass insert fittings in their home.

163. Plaintiffs therefore request that this Court enter judgment in their favor against 

Zurn in an amount sufficient to compensate Plaintiffs for all damages arising from the breaches 

of warranty, including incidental and consequential damages, interest, costs, attorney fees and 

such other and further relief as the Court deems appropriate. 

Case 2:09-cv-13515-JAC-MJH Document 1 Filed 09/04/2009 Page 25 of 33
26

COUNT V

(INTENTIONAL, NEGLIGENT, AND INNOCENT 

MISREPRESENTATION AND BAD FAITH PROMISE) 

164. Plaintiffs and the putative class members reallege the foregoing paragraphs,

inclusive, as though fully set forth herein.

165. To induce Plaintiffs to forego other opportunities to purchase a different

plumbing system, to enter into the purchase agreement, to make payment to Zurn through their 

suppliers, and to take other actions in connection with this transaction, Zurn and its

representatives made various affirmative misrepresentations of material facts, including but not 

limited to the representations that:

a. Zurn was willing and able to deliver a dependable plumbing system that 

would comply with their representations described herein;

b. Zurn had tested the Pex plumbing system and its brass insert fittings to 

determine that they were safe and fit for their intended use;

c. Pex plumbing systems were superior to copper systems;

d. Brass fittings offered more resistance to corrosion or degradation than

copper plumbing components; 

e. Zurn had a factual and engineering basis for the statements it made in the 

course of selling its Pex plumbing systems; and 

f. Zurn had implemented manufacturing and quality control practices

sufficient to deliver brass fittings that would not prematurely degrade 

when used in potable water systems.

166. Zurn knew that its affirmative misrepresentations were false when they were 

made, or they made the misrepresentations with reckless disregard as to their truth or falsity.

167. Each of the foregoing misrepresentations was made with the intent that Plaintiffs 

and their representatives rely on it in agreeing to and performing acts including the purchase of a 

Case 2:09-cv-13515-JAC-MJH Document 1 Filed 09/04/2009 Page 26 of 33
27

Zurn pex plumbing system, making payment for that system, and foregoing opportunities to 

obtain a plumbing system from someone other than Zurn.

168. Plaintiffs and their representatives reasonably relied on each of the foregoing 

representations to its detriment in agreeing to and performing the acts described above.

169. As a foreseeable, direct and/or proximate result of Zurn’s misrepresentations, 

Plaintiffs have incurred and continue to incur damages, including but not limited to the damage 

caused by the leaking fittings and the cost to replace all Zurn brass insert fittings in their home.

170. Plaintiffs therefore request that this Court enter judgment in their favor against 

Zurn in an amount sufficient to compensate Plaintiffs for all damages arising from the

misrepresentations, including incidental and consequential damages, interest, costs, attorney fees 

and such other and further relief as the Court deems appropriate.

COUNT VI

(NONDISCLOSURE)

171. Plaintiffs and the putative class members reallege the foregoing paragraphs, 

inclusive, as though fully set forth herein.

172. To induce Plaintiffs to forego other opportunities to purchase a different

plumbing system, to enter into the purchase agreement, to make payment to Zurn through its

suppliers, and to take other actions in connection with this transaction, Zurn made various 

numerous omissions of material facts, including but not limited to:

a. Failure to reveal that Zurn had never tested its brass pex insert fittings in their 

intended environment; 

b. Failure to disclose that Zurn’s choice of high zinc content yellow brass for its

pex insert fittings assured that the fittings would fail prematurely;

Case 2:09-cv-13515-JAC-MJH Document 1 Filed 09/04/2009 Page 27 of 33
28

c. Failure to disclose that Zurn did not actually manufacture the brass pex insert 

fittings and had not directed foreign manufactur ers to use acceptable

manufacturing practices to avoid premature failures of the fittings;

d. Failure to disclose that Zurn had never previously tested whether its Pex 

plumbing systems with brass insert fittings were actually superior to copper 

plumbing systems as Zurn and its representatives advertised;

e. Failure to disclose that Zurn could not describe the water conditions in which 

its brass insert fittings would or would not perform well; and

f. Failure to disclose that Zurn did not have a factual and engineering basis for 

the statements it made in the course of selling its Pex plumbing systems; and

g. Zurn had not implemented manufacturing and quality control practices

sufficient to deliver brass fittings that would not prematurely degrade when 

used in potable water systems.

173. Zurn’s failure to disclose material facts caused Plaintiffs and their representative 

to have false impressions.

174. Zurn had actual knowledge of the material facts it failed to disclose to Plaintiffs 

and their representatives.

175. When Zurn failed to disclose material facts including those enumerated above, it

knew that the nondisclosures would create false impressions.

176. When they made their material omissions, Defendants did so with the intent that 

Plaintiffs and their representatives would rely on the resulting false impressions.

177. Each of the foregoing omissions and nondisclosures was made with the intent 

that Plaintiffs and their representatives rely on it in agreeing to and performing acts including the 

purchase of a Zurn pex plumbing system, making payment for that system, and foregoing

opportunities to obtain a plumbing system from someone other than Zurn.

178. Plaintiffs and their representatives reasonably relied on the false impressions 

created by Zurn’s material omissions.

Case 2:09-cv-13515-JAC-MJH Document 1 Filed 09/04/2009 Page 28 of 33
29

179. As a foreseeable, direct and/or proximate result of Zurn’s omissions and

nondisclosures, Plaintiffs have incurred and continue to incur damages, including but not limited 

to the damage caused by the leaking fittings and the cost to replace all Zurn brass insert fittings 

in their home.

180. Plaintiffs therefore request that this Court enter judgment in their favor against 

Zurn in an amount sufficient to compensate Plaintiffs for all damages arising from the omissions 

and nondisclosure, including incidental and consequential damages, interest, costs, attorney fees 

and such other and further relief as the Court deems appropriate. 

COUNT VII

(NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO WARN)

181. Plaintiffs and the putative class members re-allege the foregoing paragraphs,

inclusive, as though fully set forth herein.

182. As the manufacturer of a product, Zurn had a duty to provide instructions for 

proper use of its products.

183. As the manufacturer of a product, Zurn had a duty to warn of foreseeable dangers 

inherent in the proper use of its products and also had a duty to warn of dangers associated with 

foreseeable misuse of its products. 

184. That to the extent Zurn claims in this lawsuit that the premature failures of its 

plumbing systems and brass insert fittings was the result of characteristics of the water chemistry 

present in Plaintiffs’ or the members of the putative class’s water supply, Zurn failed to warn of 

those characteristics or dangers. As the manufacturer of consumer products, Zurn had a duty to 

provide such information.

Case 2:09-cv-13515-JAC-MJH Document 1 Filed 09/04/2009 Page 29 of 33
30

185. That to the extent Zurn claims in this lawsuit that the premature failures of its 

plumbing systems and brass insert fittings was the result of characteristics of the water chemistry 

present in Plaintiffs’ or the members of the putative class’s water supply, Zurn failed to provide 

Plaintiffs and members of the putative class with any instructions, information or warnings about 

the types of water conditions likely to cause premature failures. As the manufacturer of

consumer products, Zurn had a duty to provide such information.

186. That as a direct, proximate and foreseeable result of Zurn’s failure to warn,

Plaintiffs and the proposed members of the class suffered damage.

187. As a result of Zurn’s failure to warn, Plaintiffs and the putative class have

suffered actual damages in that they have purchased and installed in homes and structures a 

plumbing system that is defective and that has caused damage to property other than the system 

itself and that is damaged upon its initial use.

188. As a result of Zurn’s failure to warn, Plaintiffs and the putative class will suffer 

damages that include not only the full cost to replace their plumbing systems and brass insert

fittings, but also include, without limitation, consequential and incidental damages. 

189. That as a direct, proximate and foreseeable result of Zurn’s fa ilure to warn, 

Plaintiffs and the putative class members have been damaged, in the aggregate, in an amount to 

be determined at trial.

190. Plaintiffs therefore request that this Court enter judgment in their favor against 

Zurn in an amount sufficient to compensate Plaintiffs for all damages arising from the failure to 

warn, including incidental and consequential damages, interest, costs, attorney fees and such 

other and further relief as the Court deems appropriate.

Case 2:09-cv-13515-JAC-MJH Document 1 Filed 09/04/2009 Page 30 of 33
31

COUNT VIII

(DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF)

191. Plaintiffs and the putative class members reallege the foregoing paragraphs, 

inclusive, as though fully set forth herein.

192. Pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and any

applicable statute or rule providing for declaratory and / or injunctive relief, Plaintiffs and the 

putative class members seek a declaratory judgment as follows:

a. To the extent Zurn alleges that any pretend limitations, restrictions or 

disclaimers of express warranty preclude full recovery of damages, the 

warranties fail of their essential purpose because the remaining remedies 

provided therein are inadequate and deprive the class of the benefit of the 

bargain of their purchases, because Zurn at the time of sale and thereafter 

concealed and suppressed that the system was defective, and because the 

provisions are otherwise unconscionable;

b. To the extent Zurn alleges that any pretend limitations, restrictions or 

disclaimers of express warranty preclude full recovery of damages, the 

same is unconscionable because the warranties do not provide adequate 

remedies because the defect in the plumbing system is latent and because 

the Plaintiffs lack sufficient bargaining power;

c. To the extent Zurn alleges that any pretend limitations, restrictions or 

disclaimers of implied warranty preclude full recovery of damages, the 

same is unlawful and unenforceable;

d. To the extent Zurn alleges that any pretend limitations, restrictions or 

disclaimers of implied warranty preclude full recovery of damages, the 

same is barred by Zurn’s failure to provide the alleged warranty

disclaimers at the time of sale of the product;

e. Any releases obtained by Zurn, that did not otherwise provide full

compensation to the putative class, were fraudulently induced, are

unconscionable, were obtained by suppression and concealment, were 

obtained under duress by persons needing to repair their plumbing

systems, and are null and void; and

f. To the extent Zurn has had an adverse adjudication against it arising from 

the subject matter of this Complaint, that the putative class may use 

Case 2:09-cv-13515-JAC-MJH Document 1 Filed 09/04/2009 Page 31 of 33
32

offensive collateral estoppel against Zurn for the rulings and

determinations therein.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

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

for relief against Zurn as follows:

1. Certification of this matter as a class action and appointing Plaintiffs and their 

counsel to represent the class;

2. Compensation for damages suffered by Plaintiffs and the putative class members;

3. Award of punitive damages;

4. Award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs and disbursements incurred herein; 

5. Enjoin Zurn from denying Pex warranty claims for failed brass insert fittings;

5. Declaring the rights and obligations of the parties as prayed for; and

6. Such other and further relief the Court deems just and equitable.

Respectfully Submitted,

McAlpine & Associates, P.C.

/s/ Mark L. McAlpine 

Mark L. McAlpine (P35583)

Attorney of Record

Marcus R. Sanborn (P69565)

3201 University Drive, Suite 100

Auburn Hills, MI 48326

Phone: (248) 373-3700

Fax: (248) 373-3708

mlmcapline@mcalpinelawfirm.com

Case 2:09-cv-13515-JAC-MJH Document 1 Filed 09/04/2009 Page 32 of 33
33

LARSON · KING, LLP

Shawn M. Raiter 

T. Joseph Snodgrass 

2800 Wells Fargo Place

30 East 7th Street

St. Paul, MN 55101

Telephone:(651)312-6500

sraiter@larsonking.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and 

the Putative Class

Dated: September 4, 2009

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiffs, Paul F. Bohn and Bridget B. Bohn, hereby demand a jury trial for all issues in 

this litigation which are properly submitted to a jury.

McAlpine & Associates, P.C.

/s/ Mark L. McAlpine 

Mark L. McAlpine (P35583)

Attorney of Record

Marcus R. Sanborn (69565)

3201 University Drive, Suite 100

Auburn Hills, MI 48326

Phone: (248) 373-3700

Fax: (248) 373-3708

mlmcapline@mcalpinelawfirm.com

LARSON · KING, LLP

Shawn M. Raiter (240424)

T. Joseph Snodgrass (231071)

2800 Wells Fargo Place

30 East 7th Street

St. Paul, MN 55101

Telephone:(651)312-6500

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and 

the Putative Class

Dated: September 4, 2009

Case 2:09-cv-13515-JAC-MJH Document 1 Filed 09/04/2009 Page 33 of 33