Dye v. Tamko Building Products, Inc.

908 F.3d 675 (11th Cir. 2018)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

D is a Missouri-based roofing company. Its 'Heritage 30' shingles come with a 30-year limited warranty, which is printed-in full-on the outside wrapper of every shingle package. Each package wrapper displays the all-capped word 'IMPORTANT' and warns the purchaser-again in all caps-to 'READ CAREFULLY BEFORE OPENING [THE] BUNDLE.' The wrapper further explains (1) that the consumer must notify D of any warranty-related claims 'within thirty (30) days following discovery of the problem with the Shingles' and (2) that the warranty and other purchase terms are available not only on the face of the wrapper itself but also on Tamko's website and via a toll-free telephone number. D's limited warranty contains a mandatory-arbitration clause which states: MANDATORY BINDING ARBITRATION: EVERY CLAIM, CONTROVERSY, OR DISPUTE OF ANY KIND WHATSOEVER (EACH AN 'ACTION') BETWEEN YOU AND TAMKO (INCLUDING ANY OF TAMKO'S EMPLOYEES AND AGENTS) RELATING TO OR ARISING OUT OF THE PRODUCT SHALL BE RESOLVED BY FINAL AND BINDING ARBITRATION, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE ACTION SOUNDS IN WARRANTY, CONTRACT, STATUTE, OR ANY OTHER LEGAL OR EQUITABLE THEORY. The warranty further specifies that: ANY ACTION BROUGHT BY USE AGAINST TAMKO WILL BE ARBITRATED (OR, IF ARBITRATION OF THE ACTION IS NOT PERMITTED BY LAW, LITIGATED) INDIVIDUALLY AND YOU WILL NOT CONSOLIDATE, OR SEEK CLASS TREATMENT FOR, ANY ACTION UNLESS PREVIOUSLY AGREED TO IN WRITING BY BOTH TAMKO AND YOU. Ps are Florida residents whose homes are fitted with D's Heritage 30 shingles. After a few years, Ps noticed that their shingles were crumbling and that asphalt granules were shedding and collecting in his gutters. Ps filed a putative class action seeking damages and declaratory relief on behalf of a class of building owners who had used D shingles. D filed a motion to compel arbitration and an accompanying motion to dismiss or stay court proceedings. The district court granted D's motion and dismissed the complaint. The court reasoned that Ps were bound to arbitrate because, through their roofers, whom they had hired to buy and install the shingles, they had accepted the terms of D's purchase agreement, including its mandatory-arbitration provision. Ps appealed.