The Defense Testing
Defendant's experts subjected 68 randomly selected homes to water testing. Approximately 43% of these purportedly randomly selected windows, 29 out of 68, failed the water test. In every case of failure, the windows leaked at the lower corners.
Significantly, the testing methodology employed by Defendant's experts did not conform to the criteria of either the American Society for Testing and Materials ("ASTM") or the AAMA, the industry recognized promulgators of standards relating to the field testing of windows. The defense experts intentionally deleted the essential "pressure chamber" component of the "spray rack" test. The standard unambiguously requires use of the "pressure chamber," which is specifically designed to mirror wind driven rain and, when included, is far more rigorous than the "spray rack" test by itself. Had these tests been properly performed, an even higher percentage of windows would have failed the test.
The defense experts have consistently asserted that the "spray rack" test subjects the windows to an excessive volume of water, and as a result, a failure does not reflect real life conditions. This assertion is incorrect. Each of the windows that failed the "spray rack test" were resealed by these same defense experts at the lower corners of the windows and then retested. In virtually every case in which the windows were resealed and retested, the windows did not leak. This proves not only that the "spray rack test" did not subject the windows to excessive water, but also proves that the Viking windows were improperly sealed in the first instance.
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP and David Birka-White are not affiliated with Viking Window Systems. The use of the Viking name on this website is strictly for product identification and informational purposes.
