Joseph Marrone and Jannine Marrone (Marrone) files suit in the Superior of New Jersey: Law Division against Greer and Polman Construction and Sto Corporation for breach of express and implied warranty as well as negligent manufacture. Sto corporation required a summary Judgement looking for dismiss Marrone’s complaint. The motion judge granted summary to dismiss Marrone’s complaint. Joseph and Jannine Marrone appealed to the superior court: appellant Division. Appellant Division affirmed the dismiss of the plaintiff ‘s complaint.
The plaintiff (Marrone) alleged defects on the surface of the siding of the house that they bought from the (DelCilvios) the previous owners. This product is an exterior insulation system that was applied to the house when it was constructed by Greer and Polman construction who subcontracted with Lester Stucco to installed the siding; they bought the materials from Sto Corporation and Sto NJ.
After the plaintiff purchase the house they claimed to receive a latter from the insurance company threatening to cancel the insurance of the house because of the malfunction of the EFIS system. Plaintiff complaint that the EFIS system caused damage thereto, due to the system was not properly water tight and causing moister in the structure of the house. The plaintiff assert breach of warranties and negligent manufacture. An expert (Buric) concluded that the EFIS was missing a backup system to carry away the moister from the exterior wall. the expert also founded damage to windows, on wood framing and the system was improperly installed.
Sto Corporation, Sto NJ, Greer and Polman construction wins. Grant of summary judgment motion dismissing the complaint.
The judge based his decision on the fact that the plaintiff did not argued, that Sto didn’t delivered a written warranty. On the other hand, the implied warranty did not apply in this case because of the four-year statute of limitation. The claims of negligence were dismissed based on the economic doctrine loss. The judge decision to barre the negligent claim was based on the plaintiff allege that the EFIS system was an integrated part of the house and the damage caused by it was only to the house itself. Therefore, the damage of the product is not consider separate property damage that will convert this in a tort law.