Florida Jury Awards $2.4 Million in First Chinese Drywall Trial

June 23, 2010

  • June 23, 2010 at 2:06 am
    Insurance guy says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Isnt there a polution exclusion applicable here? and if so, doesnt the well dry up sometime soon on this for other attorneys and plantiffs.

    Just a thought.

  • June 23, 2010 at 2:07 am
    Bo says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    This is a products liability case and should be subrogated against the Chinese idiots who manufactured it. If it’s so damned toxic, I wonder if the Chinks use it in their own construction. Why aren’t they having the same problem? If not, why not? Nothing good comes from China. Isn’t there some construction trade testing organization that should have caught this?

  • June 24, 2010 at 10:29 am
    Eli says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I find it hard to believe that these two DINKS had a custome built “dream house” without knowing where the drywall was coming from. They are supposedly educated professionals with a million dollar plus home and they went with chink drywall? Why would anyone allow that? I agree that the chinks are 100% responsible on the issue of “merchantability”. For those who might be unfamiliar with that term it means the product is suitable for it’s intended use. In this case it clearly was not. Sue the chinks…first it was toxic paint on toys, now toxic drywall. These people export crap and should be held accountable. I like to see the feds withold any payments the U.S. might owe them until they pay for their mess.

  • June 24, 2010 at 12:59 pm
    You forgot the dog food says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    You forgot the melamine in the dog food. Also…….what racial slur should we use on Bo & Eli?



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*