Fluidmaster’s NO-BURST Pipes Are Defective, Class Action Lawsuit Says

Top Class Actions’s website and social media posts use affiliate links. If you make a purchase using such links, we may receive a commission, but it will not result in any additional charges to you. Please review our Affiliate Link Disclosure for more information.

Fluidmaster Inc. has been hit with a class action lawsuit alleging its “NO-BURST” pipes have a design defect that causes them to corrode and fail prematurely.

The NO-BURST pipes, which are manufactured and marketed by Fluidmaster, are a line of braided steel supply lines that supply water to common household fixtures including faucets, dishwashers and toilets. Fluidmaster has sold NO-BURST stainless steel supply lines for more than 20 years.

“As evidenced by the name of its product, Fluidmaster pursued an aggressive branding and marketing strategy with respect to its NO-BURST Lines, saying that they are of high quality, built with superior materials and only sold after rigorous testing,” the class action lawsuit says. “Specifically, Fluidmaster advertises its NO-BURST Lines as ‘tough,’ ‘heavy-duty,’ ‘NSF Approved,’ ‘reinforced,’ chlorine resistant, designed for ‘high flow capacity’ and having ‘high bursting strength.’”

However, the class action lawsuit alleges that the NO-BURST lines routinely rupture and explode due to poor material selection and a defective design. Fluidmaster allegedly uses an inferior grade of stainless steel and inadequate low-pressure flexible rubber tubing. According to the class action lawsuit, the stainless steel, which protects the rubber tubing, is susceptible to corrosion from everyday household cleaners. When the stainless steel corrodes, the rubber tubing may burst.

The exploding pipe class action lawsuit alleges that Fluidmaster was aware of the design defect and knew that there was a substantial risk that the NO-BURST lines would leak, burst, break or otherwise fail. Despite this awareness, Fluidmaster did not warn customers about the risk that the lines could burst due to stress corrosion. According to the class action lawsuit, Fluidmaster did make an attempt to correct the design defect in 2003, but the improvements did not fix the defect.

“As a result of the defects in the Fluidmaster NO-BURST Braided Lines, Plaintiffs and the Class have suffered damages, including significant real and personal property damage caused by flooding from burst or ruptured NO-BURST Braided Lines,” the class action lawsuit says. The plaintiffs claim they would not have purchased NO-BURST lines had they known about the defect. Instead, they have been forced to replace the pipes much sooner than they expected.

According to the class action lawsuit, Fluidmaster not only failed to warn consumers about the risk of pipe failure, but it also reduced its warranty from 10 years to five years.

The plaintiffs filed the Fluidmaster class action lawsuit on behalf of anyone who owns or has owned a home or other structure in the United States in which NO-BURST pipes were installed. A subclass of Pennsylvania residents was also proposed. The class action lawsuit seeks to recover all costs of repairing, removing and/or replacing their NO-BURST lines, as well as the costs of repairing damage caused by the failure of the pipes.

The exploding pipe class action lawsuit alleges fraudulent concealment, design defect, failure to warn, negligence, violation of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, breach of express warranty, breach of the implied warranty of merchantability and unjust enrichment.

The plaintiffs are represented by Shanon J. Carson, Lawrence Deutsch and Glen L. Abramson of Berger & Montague and Gregory F. Coleman and Lisa A. White of Greg Coleman Law PC.

The Fluidmaster Exploding Pipe Class Action Lawsuit is Hungerman, et al. v. Fluidmaster Inc., Case No. 14-cv-00994, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.