CertainTeed Organic Shingles Roof Damage Settlement Replacement Cost Compensation

The CertainTeed Organic Shingles Roof Damage Settlement Replacement Cost Compensation settlement to eligible claimants who you own (or owned) a building with certainteed organic shingles installed. The filing deadline has not yet been announced. Proof of purchase is required.
Deadline: No deadline specified
Total amount allocated for all claims
Estimated amount per eligible claim
Claimants must provide documentation showing the building has CertainTeed Organic Shingles manufactured after July 1, 1987 and evidence of qualifying roof damage and/or replacement costs (supporting materials may include photos, inspection reports, invoices/receipts, and property/roof records).
Settlement Summary
CertainTeed is a major North American roofing manufacturer, and for years it sold “organic” asphalt shingles—shingles made with a paper/felt base saturated with asphalt, a product type that was widely used before fiberglass-mat shingles became dominant. Owners later reported that some organic shingles could deteriorate prematurely, leading to cracking, curling, granule loss, and ultimately leaks and roof damage that can be costly to diagnose and replace. The class action settlement described here covers owners of buildings with CertainTeed Organic Shingles manufactured after July 1, 1987, and offers payments that vary based on the extent of damage and the specific product/claim circumstances, with documentation required to substantiate eligibility and losses. The lawsuit was filed because plaintiffs alleged the shingles did not perform as expected over a normal service life, leaving homeowners and building owners facing early replacement costs and potential interior damage. Its significance is that it converts what might otherwise be handled through individual warranty disputes into a standardized, court-supervised claims process that can reimburse part of the replacement cost and set clearer rules for proof (such as product identification, installation details, and evidence of damage). More broadly, the case fits a long-running pattern of roofing and building-products litigation where consumers challenge alleged defects or durability issues—similar disputes have arisen across the industry involving shingles, siding, and other exterior materials—against a backdrop of building-code requirements for weather resistance, manufacturer limited-warranty terms that often prorate coverage over time, and consumer-protection standards that scrutinize whether product performance and marketing claims align with real-world longevity expectations.
Entities Involved
Related Topics
Eligibility Requirements
- You own (or owned) a building with CertainTeed Organic Shingles installed
- The shingles were manufactured after July 1, 1987
- Your roof has damage covered by the settlement (compensation depends on the damage level)
- You submit a claim by the deadline that applies to your circumstances
Featured Investigations
Stay Updated
Subscribe to our newsletter for the latest settlement updates and news.
Important Notice About Filing Claims
Submitting false information in a settlement claim is considered perjury and will result in your claim being rejected. Fraudulent claims harm legitimate class members and may result in legal consequences.
If you are unsure about your eligibility for this settlement, please visit the official settlement administrator’s website using the link provided above. Review the eligibility criteria carefully before submitting a claim.
Class Action Champion is an independent information resource and is not affiliated with any settlement administrator, law firm, or court. We provide settlement information as a service to help connect eligible class members with legitimate settlements.
Related Settlements
Absolute Dental Group $3.3 Million Settlement for 2025 Data Breach Losses
Absolute Dental Group LLC agreed to pay a $3.3 million class action settlement over a potential 2025 data breach affecting consumers’ personal information. The incident occurred between Feb. 19, 2025 and March 5, 2025, when unauthorized access may have exposed data. Eligible U.S. residents who received notice from Absolute Dental about the incident may claim up to $5,000 for documented losses and may also receive a pro rata cash payment, with certain California residents eligible for an enhanced amount.
Travelers PIP Settlement for New Jersey Claims Up to 70 or More for Deductible Reductions
A class action settlement totaling at least the net settlement fund (with attorneys’ fees up to $275,000 and service awards of $7,500) resolves allegations that Travelers and St. Paul improperly reduced New Jersey PIP coverage limits by counting deductibles and copayments, causing some insureds to receive less than the PIP benefits available. Eligible policyholders (and certain heirs/representatives) who received final PIP payments between April 14, 2017 and April 1, 2023 that were within $3,000 of their policy limit—but not the full limit—may receive an automatic $70 and possibly additional compensation.
MUBI $1.6 Million Settlement for California Auto-Renewal Without Notice
California subscribers of the MUBI streaming service may be eligible for a $1.6 million class action settlement over alleged auto-renewal charges without adequate notice or proper consent. The claims cover sign-ups beginning April 1, 2021 and auto-renewals occurring through May 31, 2025, as described in Cesar Cejudo v. MUBI, Inc. To be eligible, claimants must have been California residents whose subscription renewed at least once and who did not receive a full refund of renewal charges.
MetLife $1.2 Million Settlement for Underinsured Motorist Coverage Offsets in New Mexico
Metropolitan Direct Property and Casualty Insurance Co. (MetLife) agreed to pay $1.2 million to settle claims that it misrepresented or failed to disclose underinsured motorist (UM/UIM) coverage limits and used improper offsets. The issue relates to New Mexico auto insurance activity between Oct. 1, 2010, and Jan. 31, 2022. Eligible class members include qualifying policyholders who had UM/UIM claim offsets by at-fault payments or who purchased UM/UIM coverage in that period.
