CSST Product Liability Lawsuit

[Douglas Hansen]

JURY RULES THAT CSST IS A DEFECTIVE PRODUCT IN LANDMARK CASE : Subrogation & Recovery Law Blog (http://www.subrogationrecoverylawblog.com/2010/10/articles/products-liability/csst-1/jury-rules-that-csst-is-a-defective-product-in-landmark-case/)

Douglas Hansen
Code Check- Help With Building Codes (http://www.codecheck.com)

[Bob Knauff]

Thanks Doug...very helpful!

[Jim Luttrall]

Wow!!!

[Bruce Hutton]

:eek: So how do you guys report on this?

I have seen a million of the 750 million feet in my area alone.

There is a lot of it around here.
I read things like this & think why am I a HI?

[Nick Ostrowski]

My oh my.

I'm thinking a standard description in my reports something to the effect of........"This property contains CSST gas piping. CSST gas piping has been the subject of recent litigation and was determined in a court of law to be a defective product. Consult with a professional plumber/gas line installer for other piping options and alternatives."

[Nolan Kienitz]

Kudo's to Douglas for posting this over here.

I've had 'warning' notes in my reports for a couple of years now.

I was asked to help on a legal case where a client (attorney) took builder, plumber, etc., etc. to court for the CSST installation on a new home ... about two years ago.

I handed off the project to another excellent EW HI in our market who helped out.

Pretty sure the client prevailed.

I really don't care for the product and the bonding 'hoo-rah" is just that. Kind of like smoke & mirrors.

[Markus Keller]

Thanks for the post Doug. Not allowed here in the City but I see it regularly in the burbs. Have to add a note in the reports.

[C.Johnson]

Thanks indeed!
I see this this stuff in new construction 95% of the time around here

[Bruce King]

So it was found to be a defective product on that particular house in the lawsuit or a defective product period?

I'm not sure we have enough information to make that call at this point.

[chris brown]

Thanks Doug.
Is there any work around for these systems like a lightning rod?

Hello Markus, I would guess CSST is allowed in Chicago since about 2002 when I put it in my house. I see it a few times a year in the city, but the plumbers aren't very familiar with it in my opinion.

Although Chicago city doesn't allow gas pipe bonding, Doug has said in the past the gas pipe is bonded through our furnace electrical conduit.

[Markus Keller]

Chris, I am not aware that it is allowed in the City. I will check the latest Code book and see if there is a change I don't remember or know about. As far as 02 I know it wasn't allowed since plumbing inspectors I worked with were writing it up as non-comp back then.

[Randy Aldering]

Shazam! Are we going to see recalls of this stuff? I wonder if local code officials are aware of this? I may be making some telephone calls. Builders around here love the stuff.

[mathew stouffer]

So are you providing literature to your clients, in the reports. This stuff is everywhere around here, it's all they use.

[H.G. Watson, Sr.]

Several manufacturers and products, including Omegaflex's TracPipe of this vintage WERE already subject to a Class Action/Settlement, that included installation of a bonding and ground system being installed AND a lightning system! See: Lovelis, et al. vs. Titeflex et al. at (clickable link to the class settlement page): CSST Settlement - Home Page (http://www.pddocs.com/csst/default.aspx)

Untested, unpublished, unsettled, unperfected (not yet challenged) cases are worthless regarding precedent.

TracPipe non-conductive CSST vulnerabilities to lightning is not news.

What IS important is what Omegaflex has said (published - even in their SEC 10-K filings) about NOT to use TracPipe in the Ohio Valley and the southeast, being so prone to lightning - and thats "why" they developed and brought to market in 2004, their conductive CSST product: "Counterstrike", and the "Improved" version of "Counterstrike" which made market in 2007. Here is a blurb from the company's 10-K filing with SEC for FY filing 2007:



In 2004, we introduced a new brand of flexible gas piping sold under the registered trademark "CounterStrike®". CounterStrike® is designed to be more resistant to damage from transient electrical arcing. This feature is particularly desirable in areas that are subject to high levels of lightning strikes, such as the Southeast, and the Ohio Valley. In a lightning strike, the electrical energy of the lightning can energize all metal systems and components in a building. This electrical energy in attempting to reach ground may arc between metal systems that have different electrical resistance, and arcing can cause damage to the metal systems. In standard CSST systems, an electrical bond between the CSST and the building’s grounding electrode would address this issue, but lightning is an extremely powerful and unpredictable force. CounterStrike® CSST is designed to be electrically conductive to disperse the energy of any electrical charge over the entire surface of the CounterStrike® line. In 2007, we introduced a new version of CounterStrike® CSST that was tested to be 6 times more resistant to damage from electrical arcing than the original version, and between 50 to 400 times more effective than standard CSST products. As a result of its robust performance, the new version of
CounterStrike® has been warmly received in the market, and is a validation of our market leadership in the industry.

Short version of above quote: 2007 CounterStrike = 6 times more resistant from electrical arcing than 2004 Counterstrike; 2007 CounterStrike = 50-400 times more effective than TracPipe. Omegaflex was "aware" of the "lightning problem" before 2004 as they switched to conductive SS.

The referenced "case" in the OP hasn't even been transcripted, published, released/final order to appeal (appellate review) yet. As far as the puffing, regards THIS case and THIS lawfirm; I am not impressed!

It would be premature to act as though there is any significance, and we do NOT know the details of what was aledged, or the stipulations and/or findings in the case. We do not know the vintage of the installation, (apparently 1996-98 install or mfg'd product) or specifics as regards to bonding, protection, etc. Instructions have changed since 1998 regarding bonding CSST. The Class Action Settlement provided for Bonding & Grounding system for CSST AND a lightning protection system for the "zone" of the parties of THIS (OP) suit (If they were "smart" they'd have paid themselves for a B&G and submitted for a Lightning System). This installation would have been covered under the settlement (and the extension) and should have had a Bonding & Ground System for the entirety of the CSST AND the premisis Lightning system installed, that goes back to the Class Action, UNLESS "they" opted out, OR failed to make a claim. Unknown if these folks opted out, or participated, or didn't participate; then had a catastrophic damage event, or what!! Strict liability and damages claims were not waived by the participating Class in the settlement.

It would be irresponsible to depend upon a 2nd party or a self-published announcement/release designed to gain clients for a future class-action not yet filed by a firm specializing in such. We no nothing about what has/had been aledged in the instant (OP's) suit.

Frankly am unclear if the case being puffed about, is regarding about system or utility supply CSST or connectors made with same, OR if the B&G and Lightning systems WERE installed as per the Class Action, and technical notices, settlement notices, etc.. It is really NOT news that TracPipe shouldn't be used integrated and unprotected in areas prone to lightning. Frankly, that's why Omegaflex developed Counterstrike, then "improved" it. The Class Action from Omegaflex Inc's side was woefully under-claimed, and they got off cheap (50% discount) paying off future exposure claims into the fund early (2008), based on the woefully underclaimed representative class (projected % and feet/TracPipe installed properties vs. low $'s and low % participation of Settlement claims submitted).

However this IS a reminder about the issue in general with the "vintage" CSST and need to be B&G AND possibly a lightning protection system being installed. B&G via electrical connections in the appliance do NOT do the "job" regards non-conductive SS CSST.

[Chap Fichera]

What would a proper lightning protection system be?

[Phillip Stojanik]

JURY RULES THAT CSST IS A DEFECTIVE PRODUCT IN LANDMARK CASE : Subrogation & Recovery Law Blog (http://www.subrogationrecoverylawblog.com/2010/10/articles/products-liability/csst-1/jury-rules-that-csst-is-a-defective-product-in-landmark-case/)

Douglas Hansen
Code Check- Help With Building Codes (http://www.codecheck.com)


I found this excerpt from Doug's posted document to have a very familiar ring.


"...CSST manufacturers, as an industry, argue that compliance with these
code requirements demonstrates their products to be safe."

Sound familiar? :rolleyes:

[Rod Smith]

I dunno, but I STILL dont trust the stuff! Seems like you are asking an awful LOT of a thin piece of stainless!

[Phillip Stojanik]

I dunno, but I STILL dont trust the stuff! Seems like you are asking an awful LOT of a thin piece of stainless!

I agree Rod.

I rarely see this product in my area so its not been much of an issue for me. Anyone aware of any new news out there about this product?

[Nick Ostrowski]

I agree Rod.

I rarely see this product in my area so its not been much of an issue for me. Anyone aware of any new news out there about this product?

Check out this thread. http://www.inspectionnews.net/home_inspection/plumbing-system-home-inspection-commercial-inspection/30077-supposed-final-word.html