Products Liability Law Daily Wrap Up, DESIGN AND MANUFACTURING DEFECTS—CHEMICAL PRODUCTS—M.D. La.: Claims against binder maker largely dismissed in defective safety surfacing case, (Oct 2, 2025)

By Pankhuri Bhatnagar, B.A. LL.B.

A company’s product liability and redhibition claims survived based on allegations that the manufacturer changed the composition of its binder without warning, rendering it useless for its intended use.

In an action brought against a polyurethane binder manufacturer by a company that used the product in safety surfacing for playgrounds and fields, a federal district court in Louisiana partly granted the manufacturer’s motion to dismiss. The court found that the company’s breach of warranty, unfair trade practices, and misrepresentation claims were barred since the Louisiana Products Liability Act (LPLA) provides the exclusive remedy for cases brought against a manufacturer for damage caused by a product, apart from those based on a redhibition defect. The company was denied leave to amend based on the futility of the proposed amendment, while the manufacturer was denied attorney fees (No Fault LLC v. Stockmeier Urethanes U.S.A., Inc., No. 24-00578-BAJ-EWD (M.D. La. Sept. 26, 2025)).

Background. No Fault LLC specialized in making and installing rubber surfacing for playgrounds. Between 2020 and 2023, it purchased nearly $2 million of Stobielast® S 136 polyurethane binder from Stockmeier Urethanes U.S.A., Inc., and incorporated it with rubber granules to create safety surfacing installed at recreation facilities nationwide. More than twenty customers later reported performance failures in those installations, manifesting as cap layer flaking and delamination. The company found that the only common factor and product at each of the sites of failure was the use of the binder. It notified the manufacturer, then undertook costly replacement and repairs at its expense, claiming substantial financial loss and reputational harm. It filed suit against Stockmeier, asserting claims of redhibition, product liability under the LPLA, breach of warranty of fitness for use, violation of the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act (LUTPA), negligent or intentional misrepresentation, and legal subrogation. The manufacturer moved for dismissal of all claims.

LPLA’s exclusivity. Stockmeier argued that because it was a “manufacturer” under the LPLA, only product liability claims could stand, barring all non-LPLA claims. The LPLA clarifies that a plaintiff “may not recover from a manufacturer for damage caused by a product on the basis of any theory of liability that is not set forth in this Chapter.” La. Rev. Stat. § 9:2800.52. “Damage” is defined as “all damage caused by a product, including survival and wrongful death damages…damage to the product itself and economic loss…only to the extent that Chapter 9 of Title VII of Book III of the Civil Code, entitled ‘Redhibition,’ does not allow recovery for such damage or economic loss.” § 9:2800.53(5). In McKinney v. Superior Van & Mobility, LLC, No. CV 20-1169 (E.D. La. Apr. 2, 2021), it was acknowledged that “Louisiana state courts (including the Louisiana Supreme Court), U.S. District Courts, and the [Fifth Circuit] have almost uniformly held that the LPLA bars any non-LPLA claim (except for claims arising under the redhibition articles) against a manufacturer for damage caused by its products.” Accordingly, the company’s economic-loss redhibition claim survived, but its breach of warranty, LUTPA, and misrepresentation counts were dismissed with prejudice. Boutte v. Stryker Biotech, LLC, 67 F. Supp. 3d 732, 739 (M.D. La. 2014).

Claim validity. The manufacturer next argued that the product defect claim failed for lack of specifics about a “mistake” in manufacture or deviation from specifications, and relied on “conclusory language.” The company averred that the manufacturer’s recently submitted Certificates of Analysis showed that it lowered the subject binder’s acceptable viscosity range in 2022 without notifying its buyers, meaning that the binder used in the sites reporting failures exhibited lower viscosity than earlier specifications and had lower adhesive properties, which led to the flaking and delamination. The reasonably anticipated use of the binder was to mix with rubber granules to produce long lasting safety surfacing, which it failed to do, resulting in over 20 customer complaints. A successful LPLA claim requires a showing that the defendant was the manufacturer, the claimant’s damage was proximately caused by a product characteristic which made it “unreasonably dangerous,” and such damage arose from a reasonably anticipated use of the product. Baudin v. AstraZeneca Pharms. LP, 413 F. Supp. 3d 498, 503 (M.D. La. 2019). The court found that the complaint allegations satisfied these requirements and allowed the LPLA claim to proceed.

Redhibition. The manufacturer argued that the redhibition count was a mere recitation of legal elements. La. Civ. Code art. 2520 clarifies that a redhibitory defect is one that “renders the thing useless, or its use so inconvenient that it must be presumed that a buyer would not have bought the thing had he known of the defect.” Here, the company contended that the binder contained a defect which rendered it absolutely useless or its use so inconvenient and imperfect that it would not have purchased it had it known of the defect; that this defect existed at the time of sale but was not so apparent so as to be discovered by simple inspection; that the manufacturer misrepresented that its product was suitable for use in safety surfacing and had the same composition despite knowledge of the defect or change in viscosity; and that the company suffered substantial loss and damages from its use of the defective binder. The court declined to dismiss the redhibition claim for the same reasons it did not dismiss the LPLA claim.

Attorney fees. Stockmeier asked the court to award it attorney fees and costs under Louisiana Revised Statutes § 51:1409(A) because the company’s LUTPA claim was groundless, made in bad faith, and asserted to harass it. It explained that the slightest inquiry would have revealed that no legal basis existed for the LUTPA claim since 1988, when the LPLA was passed. But the court declined to award fees, holding that the statute was discretionary in nature and that such relief was unwarranted on the present record.

Amendment. No Fault LLC requested leave to amend under Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 15(a). However, “where amendment would be futile, the court need not grant the plaintiff leave to amend.” Matter of: Sherwin Alumina Co., L.L.C., 952 F.3d 229, 236 (5th Cir. 2020). The law is clear that the non-LPLA claims were barred apart from the redhibition theory. Since no amendment would change this reality, an amendment would be futile, resulting in the denial of the leave to amend.

The case is No. 24-00578-BAJ-EWD.

Judge: Jackson, B.

Attorneys: Joseph E. Cullens, Jr. (Walters, Thomas, Cullens, LLC) for No Fault LLC. Robert Neill Aguiluz (Robert N. Aguiluz, Attorney at Law) for STOCKMEIER Urethanes U.S.A., Inc.

Companies: STOCKMEIER Urethanes U.S.A., Inc.

Cases: CourtDecisions ChemicalNews DamagesNews DefensesLiabilityNews EvidentiaryNews CausationNews LouisianaNews