Opinion ID: 223511
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Saltzman Suit

Text: The second suit, Saltzman, et al. v. Pella Corp. and Pella Windows & Doors, Inc., No. 06-C-4481 ( Saltzman Suit), was filed in 2006 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The plaintiffs' amended complaint alleged that Pella's aluminum-clad windows contain a latent defect that allows water to penetrate and leak behind the aluminum cladding, resulting in premature wood rot and other physical damage to both the window and main structure. In addition, the plaintiffs alleged that Pella was aware that its windows contained an inherent defect that permitted leakage but had concealed this defect from the plaintiffs. These allegations formed the basis for all six claims in the amended Saltzman complaint: (1) violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, 815 Illinois Compiled Statutes 505/1 et seq., and substantially similar laws of certain other states; (2) violation of similar uniform deceptive trade practices acts; (3) common law fraud by omission; (4) breach of the implied warranty of merchantability; (5) unjust enrichment; and (6) declaratory relief. In 2008, Pella entered into a confidential agreement with its pre-2001 insurance carriers ( Saltzman Agreement), in which the insurance carriers agreed to pay a share of Pella's defense costs for the Saltzman Suit, again subject to a complete reservation of rights. Liberty Mutual was not a party to the Saltzman Agreement.