Material suppliers that sell flooring products know that humidity levels can be a big issue. If a floor fails and humidity was a factor, the parties often point fingers at each other to avoid liability. The customers blame the installer, the installer blames the supplier, and the supplier blames the manufacturer. But who is ultimately responsible? The following are three real-life scenarios.
Nobody told me
The facts: A customer hired a remodeling contractor (GC) to perform work that included new wood floors. The GC purchased the flooring from a lumberyard and hired a subcontractor to install it. The floor began splitting and cracking, which was determined to be the result of low humidity levels in the home. The manufacturer’s website and packing materials contained installation, maintenance and warranty guidelines. The customer admitted being told to monitor relative humidity (RH), but did not receive the manufacturer’s materials or any information about humidity levels. The GC provided a “Home Care Manual” at project completion, but it contained no information about RH levels or maintaining the floors. No written agreements between the parties contained a disclaimer or waiver of liability language, but the lumberyard’s packing slips and website did disclaim all warranties beyond those from the manufacturer.
The result: The manufacturer rejected the warranty claim based on low humidity conditions in the home. The lumberyard also denied liability based on its packing slips and website disclaimers. The GC, installer and customer ultimately agreed to equally share the costs to tear out and replace the flooring.
The law: Since the humidity guidelines were not followed, the manufacturer was justified in denying the warranty claim. The lumberyard was also off the hook since its packing slips and website limited its liability to only the manufacturer warranties. Ultimately, the “buck stops” with the GC as it relates to the customer. The customer hired the GC to supervise and properly perform the work and the GC should have made sure the guidelines were followed and educated the customer about the required RH levels.
NOTE: The GC was advised to start signing agreements that required the installers to hold the GC harmless for the installers’ failure to follow manufacturer guidelines.
Customer caught in the middle
The facts: Several planks began splitting only seven months after an engineered floor was installed. An inspection showed that the RH levels in the home were slightly low but that the splitting was happening because moisture levels in the flooring were too high when manufactured. The customer received no floor care instructions, but was verbally told to “watch the humidity” and did have a properly working humidification system.
The result: The manufacturer first denied the warranty claim based on improper moisture conditions when the flooring was installed, claiming the installer had not allowed the flooring to properly acclimate before installation. However, the installer’s records showed that proper acclimation had occurred. The manufacturer then asserted the customer had failed to properly maintain the correct RH levels, but the facts and expert reports showed it was very unlikely that the homeowner contributed to the problem because the splitting was too severe. The manufacturer eventually agreed to replace the flooring, but refused to pay for any labor because its warranty covered only replacement product and disclaimed labor costs. The customer ultimately paid for the extra labor expense.
The law: The manufacturer was liable to replace the product but could legally disclaim liability for the labor costs. The installer’s contract with the customer disclaimed liability for manufacturer defects, so while seemingly unfair, the customer was forced to pay for the labor to tear out and replace the defective flooring.
Material supplier suffers
The facts: A material supplier in a very dry area of the U.S. published its own guidelines regarding installing and maintaining flooring in that climate. The supplier’s suggested RH levels differed from those published by some of the manufacturers. A floor failed, and the manufacturer denied the warranty claim because its own stated RH levels were not maintained. The supplier asserted it was not liable because the customer failed to maintain the product per the manufacturer’s specifications (even though the customer had followed the supplier’s guidelines).
The result: The supplier eventually replaced the product and covered the labor costs.
The law: This was the correct result based upon these very specific facts. However, the supplier could have avoided responsibility if its own guidelines had stated that its suggested parameters were only meant to be general information, and were not intended as a substitute for the product specifications, and disclaiming liability if pertinent manufacturer guidelines were not followed.
Blake Nelson is an attorney with Hellmuth & Johnson in Minneapolis and concentrates his practice on advising and representing clients in the construction industry. He can be reached at bnelson@hjlawfirm.com.
