EIFSFACTS.ORG

The Real Facts About EIFS  

- The Remmele Memorandum -

In July of 1997 the case of Kurtis and Pamela Mayer vs. Sto Corporation went to trial in Tacoma, WA. In their suit, the Mayers claimed that Sto's system was defective and prone to trap water, resulting in rotting of the home's wood framing. In vindicating Sto, the jury noted that the manufacturer provided a product that was reasonably safe as designed, issued adequate instructions for use of the product, and did not violate the Washington Consumer Protection Act.

About a month after the trial the Plaintiff's attorney was sent an anonymous copy of a Sto internal memorandum dated October 17, 1991 and signed by Tom Remmele, the Technical Director of Sto at the time. Sto failed to produce the document during the discovery phase of the trial and, thus, the jury was not aware of its existence. The smoking content of that memorandum, now known as the "Remmele Statement" or "Remmele Memo", became the basis for an appeal for a new trial by the Plaintiffs.

We do not know the status of the appeal, but rumor has it that the Plaintiffs have decided to forego the appeal because of the hardships and expense they endured in getting to, and through, the original trial.

The following is excerpted from the Plaintiff's Memorandum in Support of Motion for a New Trial filed with the Superior Court of the State of Washington for Pierce County.

During discovery and throughout the course of three week trial in this Court, Sto consistently maintained that its product, barrier EIFS, was a safe and non-defective product. At trial Sto vigorously attacked the manner in which the Mayer home was built and predicated its entire defense on the argument that poor building practices are the sole cause of failure. Sto was able to pull this off because it was never willing to admit that its product was defective - until now.

Despite numerous interrogatories and Request for Product concerning the effectiveness of its product, Sto failed to produce a Memorandum written and signed by Tom Remmele [Sto Technical Director] on October 17, 1991, admitting that barrier clad EIFS is defective because it traps water. In this Memorandum discussing EIFS durability and longevity issues Mr. Remmele makes no mention of poor construction practices which the industry later cobbled up to shift the blames for their defective product. In 1991, Mr. Remmele wrote what he and Sto's expert were unwilling to concede at trial:

"Having recently attended an ASTM meeting where the performance of and durability standards of EIFS Systems were discussed, and having listened to HUD's prospective new criteria for EIFS Systems, (which the U.S. Army may also partially adopt), I am very much concerned that a second threat to the EIFS Industry, in addition to fire performance, is longevity and the perceived poor durability of the systems.

One consultant who was at the ASTM meeting mentioned 7 1/2 years as the expected life span of an EIFS system. Other consultant's businesses are thriving on investigation of failed EIFS projects and the looming new business in third party inspections for EIFS projects.

Admittedly, one of the inherent flaws in EIFS wall systems is their lack of redundancy in being able to tolerate moisture penetration in the field of a system or at sealant joints and "weep" it to the exterior without damage to the system or substrate.

Code agencies have already begun to recognize this and require a notched trowel application of adhesives in order to prevent retention of water behind the system. In fact, the Code requirements don't fully address the issue since they require no "weep" system and the the horizontal ribbons of adhesive formed by the notched trowel application will block and retain water just as effectively as the "ribbon and dab" method of adhesive application.

In view of the prevailing sentiment that I have witnessed amongst authorities, designers, Code agencies, etc. who are closely involved with EIFS systems that the systems don't perform well, I am recommending that we develop a "second generation" EIF system concurrently, or as a modification of our non-combustible system.

I believe there is a future market for a more durable long term performance EIFS system that incorporates all the other added values of EIFS..."

Yet when asked at trial whether he believed that barrier EIFS is a defective product Mr. Remele replied "No, I don't".