Audet and Partners, LLP has brought a class action lawsuit based on claims that Goodman and Amana manufactured and sold air conditioner units since 2008 that failed to conform to reasonable consumer expectations based on express product warranties. In the air conditioner class action lawsuit, it is alleged that central air units were sold during this time containing defective evaporator coils prone to premature rupture. This defect commonly leads to leakage of the refrigerant Freon causing the units to seize up and cease functioning properly.
The lawsuit further includes allegations that the company knowingly sold defective air conditioning units, hid the problem from consumers, and unfairly denied warranties claims for the defective products. Similar problems have been found to exist in similar central air units manufactured and sold by Amana.
In one reported case, a new Goodman AC unit (model number ARUF364216BA) allegedly experienced repeated failures before the owner contacted a repair service when the unit ceased functioning. The repair technician told the homeowner that the Freon level within the unit was low and the “O-ring” needed to be replaced at a cost of $192.50. Despite having the unit repaired, it eventually broke down again. A second repair technician inspected the unit and identified that it was leaking Freon from a hole in the evaporator coil. The costs to add more Freon totaled more than $500 in parts and labor. The technician, however, told the homeowner that is was only a temporary fix because, with the broken evaporator coil, Freon would continue to leak out. The technician gave the homeowner an estimate of $800 in labor to replace the evaporator coil.
Instead of paying for a third round of expensive repairs on the unit, the customer allegedly opted to directly contact Goodman and demand that the company replace her unit, still under warranty. She also requested reimbursement for the money already spent in attempting to repair something which, she maintained, was simply defective. Goodman allegedly told the homeowner that, in order for the “failed part” to be covered by the warranty, it would have had to be taken to an “authorized distributor” for a replacement. Since she failed do that, they refused to reimburse her for the technician’s repairs.