Connecticut's legislature approved legislation that would require warranties on roofing, siding, and windows sold in the state to include the cost of labor as well as product. The national Window and Door Manufacturers Association (WDMA) protested the action today and called on Gov. Dannel Malloy to veto the bill.
"The bill is problematically vague and unfair to manufacturers," WDMA President and CEO Michael O'Brien said in a statement. "Its passage confirms Connecticut's reputation of being hostile to business and manufacturing in particular. Furthermore, the bill and its ramifications were not given adequate scrutiny during the committee process and the fiscal impact is grossly understated."
A legislative analysis of S.B. 821 says the measure "requires manufacturers of residential roofing, window, or siding material who offer a consumer warranty for such material to pay any claim made for materials and labor under the warranty within 30 days after they receive and approve the claim. ... Under the bill, a manufacturer that pays such a consumer warranty must pay the consumer the full price for any materials and the hourly labor rate the consumer was charged, provided the consumer provides the price and rate in writing and the total amount payable for the claim must be equal to or less than the amount the consumer paid for the original purchase and installation."
Connecticut's Senate approved the bill on a 36-0 vote on May 18. The state's House voted 80-70 in favor late June 8.
O'Brien called the bill's provisions "onerous" and declared: "we call on Governor Malloy to immediately veto this misguided legislation."
The Northeastern Retail Lumber Association (NRLA), which represents manufacturers as well as dealers, wrote to leaders of the Connecticut House on June 5 seeking a "no" vote. "Mandating that all warranties cover all labor costs associated with any sort of product defect is unreasonable," it said, "as there are countless reasons why a product may fail, including: improper installation, exposure to chemicals, harsh exposure to the environment, misuse or abuse, improver maintenance, alteration or product modifications, normal wear and tear, and natural weathering. The manufacturer is not and should not be responsible for any of the above mentioned reasons as it was not the product's design or build that caused it to fail."
NRLA said that forcing manufacturers to pay all labor costs "is unfair and unreasonable to the manufacturer, who is simply not at fault." It warned the legislation could lead manufacturers to decide against selling quality building materials in the state.
