Chinese Drywall Lawsuit Ends 10 Years Later

A decade-long class action over defective Chinese drywall wrapped up its court proceedings in January 2020. Here's what Chinese drywall is, how to spot it, and what the final settlement numbers actually looked like.

💰 $248M settlement fund ⏳ 109,000 attorney hours logged 📅 Settlement finalized 01/2020
Jump to
Background
What is Chinese drywall?

Defective Chinese drywall was sold in the U.S. from 2001 through 2009, with the largest volume installed between 2004 and 2006 during a domestic drywall shortage. It has a chemical component that corrodes copper and other metals, accelerating deterioration of air conditioning coils, refrigerators, other household appliances, and electrical wiring throughout a house. It's also known to cause health issues in humans.


Identification
How to check for Chinese drywall

Identifying defective drywall isn't always straightforward — many homes were built with a mix of Chinese and U.S. drywall, and factually confirming a problem can require sending samples out for lab testing, which gets expensive.

You can do some basic checking yourself: inspect exposed electrical wiring for a black coating forming on the non-plastic components, which can indicate a problem. If air conditioning coils are deteriorating faster than expected, an HVAC technician may be able to tell you whether Chinese drywall is a possible cause. Under hot, humid conditions, affected drywall can also give off an odor often described as rotten eggs or sulfur — though not every affected home will have a noticeable smell.

How many Florida homes are affected? An estimated 35,000 or more homes were built in full or in part with defective Chinese drywall in Florida — roughly 35% of all homes built nationwide with the material between 2005 and 2009.


Case history
A class action filed a decade earlier, resolved in January 2020

The litigation over defective Chinese-manufactured drywall (Case No. 09-2047) ran for roughly a decade before court proceedings concluded in January 2020. The Taishan Settlement Agreement created a $248 million fund to compensate claimants whose damages were attributable to drywall manufactured by the Taishan entities.

For comparison, the earlier Knauf Settlement (a separate settlement with a different manufacturer) provided for complete remediation of affected properties in addition to attorney fees. Several class members objected to the Taishan settlement on the grounds that it didn't provide enough money to make them whole or fully remediate their homes, and pointed to that disparity. The court acknowledged the Taishan settlement was smaller and didn't cover 100% of remediation costs, but noted that settlements generally don't make claimants completely whole.


The numbers
Where the $248 million actually went

Of the $248 million fund, the court's order set attorney fees at 19% — $47,120,000 — to be paid exclusively from the settlement funds. The order also noted that petitioning attorneys could seek fees "totaling in the aggregate up to 32% of the Settlement Funds," which would equal $79,360,000 if petitioned for and approved.

MetricAmount
Total settlement fund$248,000,000
Attorney fees at 19% (as awarded)$47,120,000
Attorney fees ceiling at 32% (if petitioned/approved)$79,360,000
Class counsel hours logged (Jan. 1, 2014 – Aug. 31, 2019)109,000+ hours
Effective hourly rate at 19% fee award$432.29/hour
"The Taishan Settlement Agreement provides that petitioning attorneys may seek an award of attorney fees 'totaling in the aggregate up to 32% of the Settlement Funds,' which 'shall be paid from the Settlement Funds exclusively.'"
"The time and labor required — Class counsel and their staff have logged over 109,000 hours of work in the Taishan aspect of this litigation between January 1, 2014 and August 31, 2019."
"The level of legal skills required to bring about the class settlements in this case was by no means ordinary. Common benefit counsel faced formidable adversaries with significant resources and had to make the case credible enough to convince a foreign manufacturer to resolve thousands of claims at a substantial economic cost. However, the Court concludes that the benchmark percentage adequately considers counsel's skill and declines to increase the benchmark percentage based on this factor."

The court's order does not disclose what the litigation itself cost the attorneys to pursue, only what they were awarded from the fund.

Objections on the record
"Several Class Members object to the Settlement on the grounds that it simply does not provide enough money to make them whole again or to allow them to fully remediate their homes. Additionally, some Class Members object to the disparity between the Taishan Settlement and the Knauf Settlement, which provided for complete remediation of affected properties in addition to attorney fees."
"The Court acknowledges that this Settlement is smaller than the Knauf Settlement and does not provide 100% of the funds necessary to completely remediate each Affected Property. However, the Court urges the parties to remember that settlements do not usually make claimants completely whole."

Quoted language is drawn from the court's final approval order in Case No. 09-2047 (In re: Chinese-Manufactured Drywall Products Liability Litigation).