NEWS

Fairfield Union files lawsuit over defective flooring

Carl Burnett Jr.
Reporter

LANCASTER – The Fairfield Union school district is trying to recoup money it lost when the new high school and two elementary schools were built.

Late last month, the school board hired Bricker & Eckler, a Columbus law firm, to represent it in a dispute involving what the district determined were defective vinyl tile floors installed in the new Fairfield Union High, Bremen Elementary and Pleasantville Elementary schools.

“Bricker & Eckler represented the district in regards to the remedial project where the floors were removed and replaced, and thus, has historical knowledge about the flooring dispute,” according to the school board’s March 23 meeting minutes.

In April, the law firm filed a breach of contract civil lawsuit in Fairfield County Common Pleas Court against Tarkett USA Inc., of Solon.

“Because we are in litigation, I have no comment,” Jan Broughton, Fairfield Union Local Schools superintendent, said when contacted by The Eagle-Gazette.

The complaint alleges that the floor tiles produced by Azrock SVT were advertised by Tarkett in its marketing literature as a “premium product that requires a less expensive ‘commercial no-wax maintenance procedure.’ ”

The complaint also said Tarkett issued an “express written 10-year warranty with the sale of its Azrock SVT.”

The complaint said the tiles were properly installed and maintained as approved by Tarkett representatives.

However, defects began appearing that included “severe marring, marking and indentations on the flooring surface, as well as discoloration and color bleeding” at each of the three schools, according to the complaint.

The complaint said the district had notified Tarkett about the problems with the tiles, and from “October 2009 through June 2010, Tarkett visited the board’s schools on a number of occasions in an attempt to address the defective conditions.”

In June 2010, Tarkett representatives “agreed that Tarkett’s published maintenance procedures were ineffective, and recommend a costly revised maintenance plan involving regular application of polish and finishing products.”

On Oct. 7, 2011, the school board sent a formal written notice to Tarkett that the district intended to replace the flooring and expected the company to pay for it because of the warranty.

Tarkett, according to the complaint, refused to replace the flooring, and the district “was forced to remove and replace the Azrock SVT in all three schools at its own expense.”

Public records obtained by The Eagle-Gazette show the district reported the cost of replacing the floors in all three buildings was $552,575.71.

The complaint maintains the company breached its express warranty, its implied warranty and provided negligent misrepresentation of the product. The complaint maintains the district incurred damages that included the cost of maintaining and finally replacing the floor tiles.

The district is is requesting “money damages in an amount to be determined at trial, attorneys’ fees, prejudgment and post judgment interest, costs and such other relief the court may deem proper.”

Tarkett had not filed response to the complaint by Friday and could not be reached for comment.

cburnett@lancastereaglegazette.com

740-681-4346

Twitter: @CarlBurnettJr