Dryvit announced that a jury, in an 11-to-one decision, rejected plaintiff claims that the company’s Outsulation System was defective or that Dryvit was negligent in any way. The trial lasted three weeks ...

Dryvit Systems Inc. announced that a jury, in an 11-to-one decision that required fewer than three hours to deliberate, rejected plaintiff claims that the company’s Outsulation System, which was installed on the Columbine Townhouse in California, was defective or that Dryvit was negligent in any way. The trial lasted three weeks.

In Columbine Place Homeowners Association vs. Dryvit, the plaintiff sued the company on behalf of 18 owners of town homes located in Modesto, Calif. The case was heard in the Superior Court of the State of California, Stanislau County, and presided over by Judge Girolami.

At trial, the plaintiffs claimed that the company’s barrier EIFS product, known as Outsulation, was defectively designed and was defective because it was sold with inadequate warnings. The plaintiffs also claimed that the manufacturers negligently designed and tested Outsulation, that it negligently trained applicators of the product and that it negligently failed to disclose material facts to users of Outsulation. Plaintiffs sought more than $2 million as compensation for water damages to their homes and to remediate what they characterized as “toxic mold.”