Dryvit and Sto admitted
years ago that barrier EIFS don't work and can't be maintained.EIFSFACTS.ORG
The Real Facts About EIFS
- They Knew, They Knew, They Knew -
Following is evidence from the inside of the EIFS industry that shows they have known about the problems for a long time.
Dryvit and Sto admitted
years ago that barrier EIFS don't work and can't be maintained.
That's right. If you read nothing else on this site, read this:
It was 1993. Two full years before the Wilmington complaints began. More than three years before the bans on barrier EIFS in NC provided market demand for drainable systems:
"These systems were developed in response to market demand, not as a wholesale replacement for our time proven, rigorously tested EIF systems" says Ephraim Senbetta, vice president of Marketing Services at Sto Corp., the Atlanta-based U.S. subsidiary of Sto AG, Weizen, Germany. We recommend their use in those climates with frequent wind-driven rain."
Press Release, "Sto Finish Systems Division develops two EIF drainage systems ", Sto Corporation, Atlanta, GA
and a year after Joe Lstiburek, noted Forensic Building Engineer, stood up at an ASTM conference on EIFS and insisted that a drainage plain be incorporated in EIFS:
"For example, after the numerous instances of failed EIFS structures in Canada, Joe Lstiburek appeared at an ASTM conference in 1992 and insisted that a drainage plane be incorporated into the EIFS systems that are used with water sensitive substrates, such as plywood, OSB or gypsum sheathing because water intrusion into building structures is reasonably foreseeable and must be managed, in some way."
Letter from Joel Rhine to Arthur H. Romer, Jr., Romer Associates, Inc., November 24, 1998
that Sto Corporation and Dryvit, Inc. told the U.S. Patent Office, in writing, that barrier EIFS are defective by design and that a new generation of water-managed EIFS was required.
Sto Corp's Patent for its "Rain Screen EIFS"
Dryvit Even Dares to Advertise the Problems While Still Selling Barrier EIFS
According to the legal experts we've consulted, knowingly marketing a defective product while claiming otherwise constitutes fraud and fraudulant advertising.
The false claims made by EIMA and their manufacturers are affecting home-owners across the country. Fraud is a crime. It is time for the FTC and the Attornies General to investigate the history of EIMA and EIFS. If you are a home-owner who has been affected by the EIFS crisis, take a few minutes to write to the FTC. Tell them you bought into a "premium cladding system" that was advertised as being maintenance-free/virtually maintenance free/low maintenance. Tell them how much warning you were given about the potential for moisture intrusion. Most importantly, tell them you now own a home with a cladding system that no longer is resommended for residential construction, despite years of assurances from EIMA that the systems work well.
Write to the FTC at:
Consumer Response Center
Federal Trade Commission
600 Pennsylvania Ave, NW
Washington, DC 20580
- or -
you can file a complaint via the Web using their online complaint form
It was May 6, 1994 when John Edgar, Technical Manager at STO Corporation, wrote a memorandum to his superior, Tom Remele, asking for a review of an outline for an ASTM paper about EIFS. The first two paragraphs were as follows:
How does the following look besides being too long? Suggestions for revising it?
Pressure equalized rainscreen (PER) were first described in April 1963 by G.K. Garden in Canadian Building Digest No. 40. Garden proposed a screen in front of a wall, vented to allow air pressure equalization on both sides of the screen, to eliminate pressure difference as the main source of leaking through walls. Traditional face-sealed EIFS require perfection in installation and maintenance to avoid water penetration.
Tom Remele crossed out the last sentence (Traditional face-sealed EIFS require perfection in installation and maintenance to avoid water penetration), wrote in the margin: "Let's not be too critical of what we are selling today!", signed the memorandum and returned it to John Edgar.
Dryvit INTER-DEPARTMENTAL MEMO - October 16, 1984
FROM: Robert G. Thomas, Jr.
TO: L. Douglas Mault
SUBJ: Adhesive-Only Application s of Exterior Insulation and Finish Systems to Gypsum Sheathing Substrates
REF: (a) Meeting - October 15, 1985 at Dryvit Headquarters with Messrs. Morsilli, Mault, Creed, Thomas, Marston and Egan
Excerpts:
"I feel I must apologize for my testiness on the subject and explain my position further."
"I find appalling the position taken by the group that the public's safety should be compromised as part of a business risk decision. Specifially, it was agreed that failures of the subject applications are inevitable and are a normal part of the risk assumed in the use of construction products. I beg to differ. Products which are inherently sensitive to failure due to normal in-use conditions, such as water-leakage, should not be used in applications where such deterioration could lead to failures which could jeopardize the public's safety..."
"I think the company would be well advised to reconsider its position and not try to influence the ICBO group by pressuring them with smooth tactics in leiu of reviewing the facts in the matter objectively. We know from information obtained from Field Services that failures have occurred and the concensus is that we should downplay this. I think our counsel should help us develop our position on this matter."
"...I do not feel we are aware of all the situations which may be festering in the field, and I fear that the inevitable leakage which will deteriorate the sheathing will soon be upon us in terms of the life cycle of this product and its caulking joints soon being reached on the older projects."
Dryvit INTER-DEPARTMENTAL MEMO - October 12, 1990
FROM: Doug Doscher
TO: Duncan Crowther
SUBJ: Direct Applied System
"For the record, I have the two position papers prepared by Engineering Services pertaining to Direct Applied Systems, and I do not have a warm and fuzzy feeling knowing Dryvit is moving quickly to launch Fastrak.
Some might say, Dryvit Applied Systems are not EIFS and technically that is correct, but it is the EIFS industry manufacturers that are jumping on the band wagon with board suppliers to promote such systems. If Engineering Services is correct, can the EIFS industry survive and grow if job after job starts failing in say five years from now? More importantly, could Dryvit survive?
If we continue on this road, I hope Dryvit structures a new and heavily beefed-up accrual fund based on each and every Direct Applied project we do. The fact that these position papers have been written suggests if future failures occur on a substantial percentage of completed jobs, we could be required to pay triple and punitive damages because of unfair and deceptive practices.
Are we playing the same game as Mrton-Thiokol the producer of the O-Rings for the Space Shuttle?
I sure hope Ken Nota, and possibly Edwards & Angell get briefed and have an opprtunity to issue and opinion."
Proof from the inside of the
concerted effort of denial nad deception that permiates the EIFS
industry.
STO INTER-DEPARTMENTAL MEMO
TO: Area Managers
FROM: Larry Kushner
DATE: April 26, 1996
RE: Claims
"We are still having problems within the field organization in taking a unified front on claims. The process today is to have our sales force involved in claims early, have the information sent to Atlanta, determine our findings. If our people disagree, work out the disagreements internally, quickly within days. When we go into the field and we present back to the customers, owners, applicators, it has to be as Larry Steinmetz said, "the answer is" this. We are getting too many comments from the field where people are saying, "well I can see your point, however, my hands are tied, Atlanta made the decision". That is not the right response. The right response is, "this is the answer. It is not a product problem. It is application", period. "We are not responsible." We have to be forceful and we have to be united in our presentation and approach. Please instruct every sales person to handle this as we have instructed them to pricing, the price is, the answer is. Do not leave any question in their mind that this is not the right answer.
I also need to ask for your support in coaching and working with our sales people in resolving these claims, Where you need assistance through Atlanta, please coordinate through Angie. If you need someone from technical, such as Tom Remele or the product managers, Mike O'Neil or Mike Gist, again request them through Angie. If I need to be involved you can do that directly with me.
If you have any questions please give me a call.
Do you have a drainable EIFS? No? Dryvit thinks you have something to worry about:
Residential MD System(r) (DS440)
Exterior Cladding With Moisture Drainage
Extra Level of Moisture Protection
PEACE OF MIND PLUS ALL THE DRYVIT FEATURES YOU HAVE ENJOYED FOR OVER 30 YEARS. TAKING THE WORRY OUT OF THE WALL.
DS440, Dryvit Systems, Inc, The Dryvit Web Site, 1999
Note: John Edgar was, and is, Manager of Technical Operations at STO Corporation.
Read about the infamous Remmele Memorandum. This is a very damning memorandum from within Sto Corporation written by a Sto executive in 1991. It is one of several "smoking guns".
Northwest Wall and Ceiling Bureau's EIFS Public Relations Program Memo
(PR Plan for Managing EIFS Crisis in Northwest)
This was a PR plan proposed to NWCB by "a party in the EIFS industry". According to their e-mail, NWCB's Board declined to implement the plan. So far, NWCB has declined to identify the "party".
Metroclean Systems and Parent Company Dryvit Systems conspire to Change Dryvit Technical Documents. Dryvit Marketing Director: "One of the two points Class Action Attorneys in NC are able to argue on is that Dryvit did not warn!!!!".
Note: Dryvit is currently threatening to sue this site's founder for "infringing on Dryvit's copyrights and trademarks and [the owner] may be misappropriating trade secrets". Frotunately, someone may be standing in their way: U.S. District Judge Nancy Edmunds, whose recent decision against Ford Motor Company has set a precedent.
Think EIFS can't leak through the face? Take a look at this.
Can you believe this one?
A Comparison: conventional interior insulation vs. the advantages of the Dryvit Outsulation System
"Damaging water penetration is avoided. Rain finds its way into the wall structure when insulation is placed inside. Conventional insulation absorbs water over a period of time and eventually becomes inefficient. With Outsulation, there are no routes for water to enter. Bridges are sealed. The entire wall remains dry and insulation values remain constant."
DS 201: Dryvit Outsulation Exterior Wall insulation and Finish System, Dryvit Systems, Inc., 1981, page 7
Keep the water off the walls?
"Minimize the potential intrusion of water from wind driven rain by designing with wide eaves, trim, recesses, drip edges or other features that keep water off walls."
Water Intrusion Prevention Tips, Sto Corporation Web Site, Sto Corporation, Sep. 1999
Hey, STO, we're kind of dense. Could you please explain this to us??
"Many EIF Systems are face-sealed systems, which means that the systems are made watertight on their exterior. Water must be prevented from getting behind the system from other sources. Face-sealed EIF Systems make limited provision to allow intruding water from these sources to escape, because incidental water can escape as water vapor without causing damage."
Press Release: Home Building Basics and Exterior Insulation and Finish Systems, Sto Corporation, Atlanta, GA, 1999
So, if the water can escape without causing damage, why have you...
"Sto Corp.'s Finish Systems Division has developed two different systems for the drainage of incidental water which might get behind its traditional exterior insulation and finish (EIF) cladding systems."
Press Release: Sto Finish Systems Division Develops Two EIF Drainage Systems, Sto Corporation, Atlanta, GA, 1998
"In cases where homes have been damaged, the problems have been traced to the use of poor quality (even leaky and/or non code-compliant) windows and/or improper flashing and sealing."
What Are EIFS? The Official EIMA Website, October, 1999
"Even the best windows are subject to water leakage. Sto testing of both economy and high priced custom windows has shown that some of them are not fully water resistant even right out of the carton."
STO Sill Sentry White Paper, STO Corporation Web Site, October, 1999
Was this testing done prior to introducing barrier systems to the marketplace? Were consumers warned about potential incompatabilities between a cladding system that demands a water-proof standard of construction and common building components that provide a water-resistant barrier?
Yes, Virginia, there is a Dryvit Express Warranty, even if their attornies say otherwise:
"Judge, I don't know... They keep talking about some warranty. There is no warranty. I don't know, judge. I just don't know what they are talking about."
Eric Schwartz, Mays & Valentine, Counsel for Dryvit, Inc., Pre-trial motions, McMillion vs. Dryvit, Fairfax County District Court, December, 1999
and here it is:
7/5
Per requests, additional Dryvit warranty documents are now on-line:
Do you have information about Project Late-Night (The 8-panel test)?
