BASF Sealant Failure
Warning
This website https://BASFSealantFailure.com©
was
developed as a public service, to warn and caution people - “worldwide”
regarding sealant failures of
Sonneborn®
SONOLASTIC®
150 TINT BASE
and other BASF - Sonneborn® sealants.
·
The Purpose of the website is part of a public awareness campaign for
specifiers, sellers of sealants and/or any person or company who may be
considering the use of BASF Sonneborn® sealants.
·
The Writers intention for this website and the data posted within is to provide and bring
awareness of his bad experience with BASF sonneborn® sealant(s)
and BASF of North America Business Tactics to people worldwide.
·
The Tactics the writer experienced with BASF were void of professional ethics to
avoid warranty responsibility and other commitments BASF made to the writer. It
is the writers position and opinion that BASF actions, and/or lack of action, for years, created
a breach of express warranty, implied
warranty, oral contract, also negligent
and/or intentional misrepresentation under the Florida USA Deceptive unfair trade practices Act. Etc.
If you have experienced BASF -Sonneborne® Sealant Failures or non professional, non ethical dealings with BASF and would like to share your
thoughts or experiences, you may Click Here
Viewers
may wish to review the 3 Photo Albums
before reviewing the
data contained in this website
ALBUM ONE
50 Photos .
Exterior Photos of Failed BASF
Sealant where the sealant was used for
waterproofing Brick Mortar joints, to
eliminate water leaks.
Click Here
to view exterior Photo Album
Click Here
to Review Cohesive Failure and why sealants fail C.E. Laurence co. inc.
ALBUM TWO
100 Photos
Interior Home Damage caused by sealant failure .
Click Here
to view interior damage photos.
ALBUM THREE 37 Photos
The Photo Album pertains to
other failures of sealant in the Central West Coast of Florida suggesting to the
writer that there is a sealant failure of
epidemic proportions in Florida. Tampa General Hospital was stated to
have used BASF Sonneborn® Sonolastic 150, that failed also several local high
rise , condominiums. The Pinellas County School District with 140 schools is
said to specify BASF Sonneborn® Sonolastic 150 and has had sealant failure. The
source for statements made above, came from the waterproofing trade.
Photos were taken at Tampa General
Hospital and Businesses , in relatively new Florida
locations, including
Walgreens, CVS, Publix, Home depot, Albertsons
Super Markets,
, Fed-EX , Chick-fil-A
Lowes, Sam’s Club, Cosco, Pelts Shoes, Ross Stores Target Stores, HH Green, Jared Jewelers Men’s
warehouse T-mobile, Michaels Crafts,
Vitamin Shop. It is the opinion of the writer that the sealant failure in the
photos is or may be BASF Sonolastic 150, or another BASF sealant, the appearance
and feel is the same, but has not been verified, as of, the development date of
the website, January 1012.
The above businesses may not be
aware of their sealant failure. The writer suspects that , in the event, the corporate
offices of these businesses become aware of this website, that there may be
considerable repercussion. The businesses
stated have multiple
stores in Florida, many of the businesses have large amounts of
stores in many states considered high in
UV. As an example Walgreens
operates 8,210 US locations in US ,
846 stores in Florida.- CVS 7,000 stores in 41 states 693 in Florida - Publix 1086 in
several states 687 in Florida , Home Depot, 2200 in us 2014 in Florida and etc.
Click Here
to view sealant failure photos in Florida Central West Cost.
If you are considering the use
of BASF
-
Sonneborn® Sonolastic 150 ,
SONOLASTIC® 150 TINT BASE Sealant or
any BASF sealant, you may wish
to review this website, draw your own conclusions and proceed as you deem
appropriate for your purpose.
This story is the writer’s
experience! It did occur. The statements and data stated are the
writers personal opinions
including letter or email attachments that have to be clicked on to be viewed.
Letters,
received from BASF and others,
in addition to brochures & specifications,
speak for themselves. Back up documents and letters are provided in various
noted Links as Click to view or review.
The writer is of the opinion that BASF North America has not been forthright, honest and professional with
the writer as set out by BASF Corporation in Germany who posts guidelines and
rules of operation for the world’s largest chemical company. Rules and guidelines that one would
expect from such a large company as BASF but in the writers opinion dealing with
BASF North America has lacked many of the elements and guidelines posted,
Including but not limited
to code of conduct, ethics, values,
integrity, honesty & etc.
The 7 links below contain BASF
stated rules and guidelines of operation.
The short version of
the saga begins here,
The long version which is more detailed,
continues below the short version.
BASF
was involved with Specifications, Recommendations, Means & Methods and approximate
monthly inspections of
waterproofing project for 3 years beginning early 2003 through March 10, 2006.
There had been 3 sealant failures during
the installation period which were admitted,
by BASF to have been caused by BAD PRODUCT. The 3 failures during
installation served to arrive at an agreement with BASF, that should any more failures occur in the future, after completion of the work that BASF would have the failed
sealant replaced, at their expense, including labor and material.
Letters and data noted in the
short version have LINKS
for viewing in the long version below, such are indicated by asterisk.*
·
Jan 2, 2008 * after many failed
attempts to contact BASF,
a letter was sent regarding suspected failure.*
·
Later in 2008 a BASF team
inspected failing sealant.
Initially BASF attempted to
blame the sealant failure on the waterproofers but abandoned that approach. At that time approximately
16% of the sealant had failure later
on the sealant failure reached 100%.
·
April 7, 2009*BASF offered a
token amount of
$15,515.00 Sonolastic
150 tint base material, in exchange
for a complete release of all liability.
The proposed offer placed the sealant replacement burden on the writer.
BASF obtained an installation-labor
quotation in amount of $13,180.00 but BASF did not include money in the proposed
offer of settlement to cover the labor quotation, which was a breach of the BASF
agreement made.
·
The April 7, 2009*Offer was rejected
because it did not include promised money for the labor of installation also due
the fact that the offer had been based on the amount of failure visible at the
time of inspection in the amount of approximately 16% sealant failure that had
continued and ultimately reached
100% sealant failure.
·
At no time did BASF increase
their offer to
include additional money to pay for the approximate 84% of sealant failure that
was not present at the time of the 2008 inspection or the agreed to money for
labor cost.
·
May 8, 2009* BASF Sr
support Specialist
makes suppositions or guesses for tor the reason of sealant failure, blaming it
on non conclusive items with no validity.
BASF States that the replacement Sealant should be
SILCONE which BASF does not have in its
line of products.
This being stated after BASF sanctioned
the use of the installation of Sonolastic 150 tint base over a 3 year period of
time. At no time over the 3 years and more than 50 inspection visits, did
BASF ever suggest that their product recommendation was not the best choice of
Sealant for “the use intended” in “the climate intended”
·
The writer offered to accept an
amount equal to the money paid for labor and material.
·
August 17, 2009*
the Senior Counsel for BASF composed a
letter directing the writer to Supply BASF data,
supporting the out of money paid by the
writer, for labor and materials including
backup such as Visa Bill etc, proof of payment checks etc.
·
May 16, 2010 a 4” notebook was sent including a 31 page letter to BASF,
including the total history, photographs, backup for labor paid, backup for BASF
materials paid. The total documented labor supported
$285,939.37 to date the BASF Sr. never responded to the data sent.
·
BASF
never Responded to the data that took the writer considerable
time compile, copy and assemble.
·
August 1, 2010 an email* was
sent to Sr. Council with photos of the beginning
stages of interior damage photos. Council responded that
damage inside the home was the writers
responsibility to protect.
·
Had BASF abided by their
commitment made, timely, as they pledged to do, the interior damage would not have
occurred, the writer would not have been placed in a non compromising position
of taking on the burden of replacing the Sealant also repairing the interior
damage . The Writer would not now be facing another 3 year house renovation and
would not now be in the beginning stages of a public awareness campaign.
·
The BASF sealant was and is
stated “for USE In All Climates” so the sealant should perform in all climates.
It is now obvious to
the writer that the subject sealants can
not perform as intended “ in all climates” as claimed by BASF.
·
The writer is of the opinion that BASF sealants lack proper UV inhibitors and/or
testing to make the claim “ for use in all climates.
The stated UV test by the
testing company indicated in BASF data,
ATLAS 6500 xenon Arc 2000 hrs.,
appears, not to be sufficient testing. Atlas has provided data to indicate that
the BASF sealant test equals slightly over 10 months of testing for a product
stated at inception to have an expected life of up to 20 years but failed in less than 1-2 years.
Other opinions suggest lacking or no UV inhibitors in the BASF sealant(S) .
·
May 16, 2010 the writer
indicated that if BASF did not provide a
fair settlement without litigation that the writer would
develop a campaign of public awareness to
caution or warn others of problems with
the sealant . Apparently BASF either
did not believe the writer or did not care. .
·
December 2010 the writer was
forced to hire a law firm because BASF
had not responded to
the data asked for and supplied May 16, 2010 .
·
BY
late 2011 BASF was indicating, in essence, good luck, your problem, the statute of limitations to file a lawsuit has passed but the writer does not
feel that is true. Discovery dates of the failure for statute of limitations are
sometimes decided by a judge. A recent
legal ruling in Florida set the 4 year start date of the time of discovery of
failure at a point where failed sealant had allowed water entry into the
building which sets the statute run time, 4 years
from June 26, 2009. In any event, either way the customer looses time money and
suffers inconvenience also becomes strapped with the burden of repairing
and an expensive lawsuit.
·
All of this wasted time and
motion could have easily been avoided had BASF followed through with their
commitment and not breached an agreement made. A
lawsuit will cost BASF more money in
legal fees than simply correcting the problem at the onset, as agreed.
In addition BASF may have to pay attorneys fees on both sides plus treble
damages, such was the case in a class action suit Peterson V. BASF which
took 10 years, begin at a 52 million dollar judgment but reached 68 million
while attempting to avoid responsibility which did not happen. The 68 million
did not include the amount it cost BASF in legal fees to try and avoid
responsibility for 10 years. In the writers opinion, not a very good
business choice of decision for the worlds’ largest chemical company.
·
Peterson V. BASF
Corp.
was a class action a law suit filed for deceptive practices against
farmers . April 2002 a judgment was entered under the new jersey consumer fraud
act against BASF in the amount of $52,058,932.00 against BASF for defrauding farmers. Many of the claims made were similar to the writer’s
saga. The Judgment included pre judgment interest, treble damages and other
mandatory damages under New Jersey law.
·
In Conclusion, the writer
trusted BASF and patently waited for
years, on BASF to take action and do what they had agreed to do The writer
thinks that a lesson would have been
learned and that the tactics of responsibility at BASF would have changed
however, the writers experience suggest not. In
addition, the many class action law suits that have been filed against BASF for
various reasons suggest avoidance of responsibility is a tactic of BASF, at
least, in the United States and/or
North America.
The
writer has begun to assemble data that can be read on the World Wide Web, in hopes that the saga can benefit other people and help them avoid a
similar experience with BASF. The
Writer felt that people, should become
aware of the BASF sealant which fails in
an unreasonable time and when it does that BASF
may use avoidance of responsibility tactics like they did with the writer. .
The writer is of the opinion
that selling sealants that will not withstand Florida climates and other
climates unknown, including the lacking testing to support sealant life for a reasonable time is suitable
basis for a class action lawsuit which could be much larger than
Peterson V. BASF,
In view of a small sampling of chain and franchise stores indicated in
Photo album # 3. Claims for Deceptive and an
unfair trade practices, similar to Peterson V.
BASF.
In addition the
selling of products with lacking
UV inhibitors and accelerated testing that appears to be lacking to support a
reasonable lifetime for a sealant “ for use in all climates” is
irresponsible, in the opinion of the
writer.
If you or any of your customers
would like to join a class action suit
Click Here
The long version of
the saga begins here and is in depth with the ability to view and/or review BASF Letters,
specifications and other impute
January 2, 2008 following many non
returned emails and voice mails, a letter
was sent notifying BASF and requesting that they inspect the Sealant, to
determine if it was failing and reminding
them of their committed also promises made in Early 2006 , to replace any future
failed sealant, at no cost to the writer, moreover, to take care of the problem,
including any damage caused from BASF procrastination.
Click Here to view January 2, 2008 letter to BASF.
January 9, 2009 the BASF
territory sales manager who had sanctioned the installation of sealant for 3
years,
obtained a quotation for labor to install
the phase one, failed sealant area inspected by the 3 person inspection team. At
the time of inspection approximately 16% of the BASF sealant inspected had
failed the remainder of the sealant
has failed since the time of the inspection in 2008.
Click Here to view the quotation for installation obtained by BASF
April 7, 2009 BASF Sr. Product Support Specialist composed a letter,
as a follow up to his inspection team
made up of himself , another Sr.
Product Support Specialist and the
Territory Sales Manager who had been involved with the overseeing material and
installation recommendations etc. for 3
years. By the time of the inspection
took place, approximately a year prior, Sealant failure had become obvious in
areas totaling approximately 16% but the letter offer was an attempt to buy off
responsibility for a fraction of the
money spent or the money that would
be required to replace all the failing sealant plus the yet to fail sealant.
The letter takes no responsibility “whatsoever” and “agrees to contribute
$15,515.00 , “the retail amount of the Sonolastic 150 tint Base® sealant “ used on the project but
void of the agreed to installation labor
cost. There had been a long time period between the inspection and the April 7, 2009
letter-offer was made and more sealant
had failed. Later on all the sealant failed and it was determined by the writer
that the total “out of Pocket” cost of labor and material he paid was
$285,939.37. Therefore, the
$15,515.00 generous amount, as stated by BASF, several times, was considered an
insult by the writer who had spent over quarter of a million dollars U.S.D. for
this waterproofing work with BASF products. At
the time of the inspection the Failed Sealant was estimated at roughly
16% whereas the reaming 84% failed later on. Hence the generous amount stated
only applied to 16% of the sealant failure and
no additional offer was ever made as the failure percentage ratio continues to
escalate. Finally
100% of the sealant failed and still no
revised amount was offered. In the interim the failed sealant caused other
damages .
Click Here to view April 7, 2009 BASF Letter
Click Here to review business cards of the inspection team
Phone Contact was made to the
writer of the letter-offer, explaining that the offer required a complete
release of liability The offer was an insufficient amount in view of the
money spent and what would be required to replace sealant that had failed
following the 2008 inspection. It was
farther explained that said letter-agreement
was not a phase one portion as indicated by the territory sales manager that it
was a complete release of all liability.
Said full release could not be agreed to without knowing if all the
sealant was going to fail or not, the proposed agreement was void of the agreed
to labor cost also there was missing a
reason for the failure and assurance do that once the failed Sonolastic 150 tint
Base® sealant was replaced would the
replacement sealant fail.
April 30, 2009 BASF sent samples
of 3 sealants, to determine
if any of the samples were a color match to
the Sonolastic 150 tint base used on the project. No samples were close to an
acceptable color match and it should be noted that the samples sent were single
mix products that are much less expensive to purchase and/or install than the
original sealant. It is not clear to the
writer, which product that Island Painting & waterproofing included in their
installation estimate of January 9, 2009 that was obtained by the BASF territory
sales manager. The writer
suspected that the quotation was for the less expensive to install product like
the samples sent April 30, 2009 BASF. The quotation to BASF referred to is
3 Click Here
links above.
Click Here to view transmittal email of 3 samples.
May 8, 2009 BASF Sr. Product
Support Specialist composed a letter responding to the recent phone conversation
indicated above. The
letter offers no valid reason for the sealant failure, instead suppositions or a
guess, pointing the failure to unknown causes. Bear in mind that said sealant
had an expected life up to 20 years and a one year limited warranty which was
irrelevant in view of the BASF commitment made to the writer in early March of
2006. However, if you review the warranty you will note that the limited
warranty has the bold language NO WARRANTY OR GUARANTEE, EXPRESS OR IMLIED
INCLUDING WARRANTIES OF FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. For those of you who may not be
aware most of the States in the U.S. do not recognize such statements as legal
and frown on tactics that place people in reliance of an expected life up to 20
years products, then state a one year limited warranty with the language of NO
WARRANTY OR GUARANTEE EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED which is not recognizes in most or
possibly all of the States in the
United States. The writer has no knowledge of regulations in other countries.
The U.S. legal
system takes a position that products used in the scope of the manufacturers
printed data, should do what the Manufacturer states or implies including a
reasonable length of time.
1-2 year life for a high dollar
Professional Grade Sealant, properly installed by
construction specialist , is obviously
not a reasonable life expectancy, especially,
In view of the broad claim of
expected life up to 20 years. Hence, heavy reliance targets the
statement made relative to the expected
life by the manufacturers printed data.
Click Here to view warranty from Form No SN-360 & and BASF form NO. 102639 9/7
By April 2005 The stated warranty to
specifiers Section 07 92 13
Sonolastic Tint Base page 3 of 6 provide a
5 year standard material warranty and
who knows what that is. It farther includes coverage
for sealant materials which fail to
achieve water tight seal ( like the writers house) . Exclusions pertain to
excessive movement, faulty constructing etc. none of which apply to the writers
house. Use in Florida or near the bay as a
guess made by BASF is not a stated
exclusion, such an exclusion which
would apply to the salt water borders of countries of the world, where BASF
products are sold for use near salt water. Please Note! There is no exclusion
for environmental conditions and of course “Suitable for all climates”
eliminates or bars such a broad claim of “environmental conditions” and “beyond
the manufactures control”..
Click Here to review Section 07 92 13 Sonolastic Tint Base page 3 paragraph 1.7.
Consider that BASF is the World’
s largest Chemical company, who could have easily placed test equipment on the home,
to determine failure, but they did not
bother. Hence the writer is of the opinion that they actually knew the reason
for failure but did not care to reveal it so they recommended the use of
SILICONE not a product in there line of products.
BASF made
suppositions
or guesses with no
basis, if fact,
which have
no validity for a product sold as “
suitable for all climates” .
Furthermore, there was no visible
evidence at the time of the inspection to support a cause of failure created
by the type of wall construction or that claim would have been made by BASF at
the time of inspection or in the letter offer of
April 7, 2009. The claim could not be made because the sealant was
falling apart, from within the sealant itself.
The Sealant was not pulling away from the masonry or cracking in a
straight line, which would have been caused by building shift or expansion
beyond the capability of the product. Hence
the supposition relative to type of wall construction has no validity.
The photos show that the sealant did not
pull away from any masonry, it did not crack open in a straight line, it
fell apart and ceased to maintain the
waterproofing barrier. The May 8 ,
2009 letter, farther indicates that
they “feel that the remainder of the
sealant that is in good shape will continue
to perform and not pose any farther
issues”. Bear in mind that this claim was made on a 2008 inspection and
while the future projection statement made by BASF was a good hope, it was
incorrect. Much more sealant failed between the time of the inspection and the writing of the
May 8, 2009 letter whereas all of the sealant has since failed.
May 8, 2009 BASF states that SILICONE should be used as a replacement sealant
and admits
that BASF does not have such, in its line of products.
An irresponsible position when BASF had
sanctioned the recommendation and installation
of their Sealant(S) for 3 years with approximate
monthly, site inspections,
while the writer spent $285,939.37, in
good faith.
Click Here to Review BASF MAY 8, 2009 Letter
BASF had sanctioned the
installation of the of
BASF SONOLASTIC® 150 TINT BASE Sealant over a 3 year
period of time by a Territory manager who made inspections approximately once a
month for 3 years. The BASF SONOLASTIC®
150 TINT BASE Sealant was recommended as “the right choice of Sealant for
the purpose intended” backed up with
a product brochure Form No. SN-360
stating “ suitable for use in all
climates” and with a life expectancy up to 20 years but in spite of all of the above now
BASF admits in May 9, 2009,
that they do not have a suitable product
to seal brick mortar joints, after being part of the waterproofing process over a 3 year period of time.
Unquestionably Irresponsible!
Click Here to review product brochure Form No. SN-360
The above is not all
of the ridiculousness irresponsibility and bad business tactics! BASF initially tried to pass
responsibility of their failed sealant to the installers for improper mixing
and/or installation of the product, this tactic was abandoned after BASF had
discussions with installers. I guess this is one reason for the long length of
time between the team inspection in 2008 and the April 7, 2009 letter offer,
approximately one year later, as the writer recalls. .
Note that BASF Sr. Support specialist
makes no claim that the
BASF Sonneborn® Sonolastic 150 ,
SONOLASTIC® 150 TINT Base Sealant was not the
correct choice of their materials, no
claim that the sealant was not improperly installed, no claim that the sealant
was not improperly mixed , therefore all that remains is bad product, like
the 3 failures during the installation period and the fact that the sealant is
not suitable for “Use in all climates” with a
expected life up to 20 years, as claimed and stated.
The writer located a publication
of why sealants fail.
C.E. Laurence co. inc. page 2 supports the opinion of the writer
and others, relative to ”Cohesive
Failure” the product
fell apart 3 times during the
installation period and was stated to be
bad product, following the installation period 100% of the sealant failed with
causes stated in suppositions, not fact!
The above raises the issue of the initial 3 failures during installation,
was it in fact bad product, or was it all bad product, in any event, it clearly
is not suitable for use on all climates as sold and people are in reliance on.
Click Here to Review Cohesive Failure and why sealants fail C.E. Laurence co. inc.
The BASF Sonolastic 150 Tint base
brochure Form No. SN-360 makes no references or
comparisons to silicone but by 2005, newer BASF brochures’ begin to
make two undisputable claims .
·
“ OFFERS
THE BENEFITS OF SILICONE SEALANTS.”
·
Where to
Use” IN PLACE OF SILICONE SEALANTS.”
The two claims ABOVE MISLEAD PEOPLE
INTO BELIEVING and/OR RELYING ON CLAIMS MADE THAT SUGGEST THAT THE BASF SEALANT
IS SOMETHING THAT IT IS NOT!
The writer is of the opinion that such
claims STRONGLY imply, IN CONVENCING LANGUAGE, that Sonolastic 150 Tint base and
other BASF sealants equal or better than SILICONE . The Tactic is negligent
and/or possibly intentional misrepresentation
under the Florida USA Deceptive unfair trade practices Act. Such applies to most
or all states in the United States of America.
The writer is of the opinion
that the brochure clams made in comparison to equal or better
than Silicone are, intentionally, grossly misleading, false advertising and selling products under
false pretenses.
Click Here to review BASF
Claims as a replacement or SILICONE 2007.
Please note that in the 2008
BASF brochure sheet pulled from the internet, includes
a graph that visually
compares Sonolastic 150, to Polyurethane, to silicone and the with the
implication and/or misrepresentation to the viewer,
is that the new hybrid
Sonolastic VLM is better than silicone.
This brochure targeted to Specifiers
and Architects was printed in 2008 but in his letter of May 8, 2009 BASF sr.
product specialist making claims that render the graph in the brochure to
specifiers and architects, a blatant misrepresentation .
Click Here to review BASF Claims as a replacement or SILICONE 2008.
Click Here to review BASF Claims as a replacement or SILICONE 2009.
Click Here to review BASF
Claims as a replacement or SILICONE 2010.
June 26, 2009 an email was sent making
BASF aware that during heavy rains water is entering the home
Click Here to review June 26, 2009 email.
July 1, 2009 a second email was sent to the making BASF aware that
water entry was intensifying.
Click Here to review July I , 2009 email.
The next call received was from
BASF Claims and Warranty manager, asking if I was going to accept the letter-offer of April 7, 2009 . The response
was that since the time of inspection that sealant failure was escalating and
the Claims manager should come to Florida and see for himself. It was agreed that the
Claims and Warranty manager would conduct his verification within 2 weeks. That
visit never occurred.
July 27, 2009
the BASF claims and warranty manager
composed a letter.
this time taking a bold claim
blaming failure on Environmental Conditions which flies in the face of the bold
statement ” suitable for use in all climates”. The letter goes on to attempt to
have the writer accept the April 7, 2009 offer in a couple of days, By July 31, 2009 or the offer would
be off the table. The writer called
and explained why the offer was inappropriate because it only covered 16% of the
failed sealant and stated that since they were obviously placing the repair
burden on the customer, if they would be willing to pay the out of pocket money
spent, that the writer would take on the sealant replacement burden.
Click Here to view BASF July 27 , 2009 letter. .
August
17, 2009
the Senior Counsel for BASF composed a
letter asking the writer to send data supporting labor and material cost
spent, including Visa Bill backup, check ledgers etc.
A response was sent by email indicating
that it would take time to develop all the documentation but it would be
compiled and sent. The task took longer than expected. By the time of completion
it took a 4” thick notebook to hold all the data sent.
Click Here to view BASF August 17 , 2009 letter. .
May 16, 2010 a 4” notebook was sent to BASF Senior Council,
including a 31 page letter of the total history,
photographs, backup for labor paid, backup for BASF materials paid. The
documented labor and materials cost the writer paid was $285,939.37 which was
supported with backup documents of proof of out of pocket money spent.
BASF has
never responded to the data sent.
Click Here to view page one of 31 page letter.
August 1, 2010 an email was sent
with photos of damage that was occurring inside the home due to the
procrastination of BASF for the agreed to replacement of any future failed
sealant.
Click Here to review August 1, 2010 email.
August 1, 2010 a response was received stating that
BASF will not be responsible for any damages caused to the interior of the home
that it was the writers responsibility to
protect the property. The writer is of the opinion that while this may be the
case in insurance litigation, it holds no
validity under the agreement made and the agreement breached,
BASF sealant failure and BASF
procrastination was the cause of the interior damage which would have been
avoided had BASF not breached their commitment made in Early March 2006, to
replace, any future sealant failure, at no cost to the writer.
Click Here to review August 1, 2010 response email.
In response to BASF claim of”
failure to mitigate one’s Damage a email was sent August 3, 2010 setting out
step that the writer had taken to protect the home even though
it should not have been the writers
responsibility. In any event, the writer had taken all steps possible, short of
complete sealant replacement, to protect the interior of the home.
Click Here to review August 3, 2010 email response
BASF
did not abide by their commitment but
instead procrastinated as though they would pay, to a point in time that BASF
then switched to a position of avoidance, that the statute of limitations had
run to file a lawsuit however we are of the opinion that a recent ruling in
Florida Courts suggest that the statute of limitations has not passed for
several reasons, the actual discovery of sealant cracking was in 2008 but water entry was not
discovered until June 2009 whereas the discovery of
lack UV inhibitors “ for use in all
climates “ was not discovered till
October 2010 ,
whereas the lack of testing indicated from data received from Atlas,
was not known for approximately another couple of months.
The BASF tactic with the writer was a course of action, or no
action, to make one think that they
would take responsibility and abide by
warranties also commitments made. Finally, due to years of procrastination by
BASF, The writer had no option but
to have BASF contacted by a legal firm which
occurred
January 26, 2011 .Time continued to pass with talk of fair settlement
until finally it was stated by BASF Florida council , in late 2011,that
the statute of limitations had passed ,
for the filing of an expensive lawsuit, however a
recent ruling in Florida suggest a different dateline but in any event the
Bottom
Line to viewers, filing a warranty
claim or accepting any promise
arrangements with BASF may not bring a
suitable resolution.
Click Here to review Lawyer contact letter to BASF
BASF is a German Company and the
writer has been involved with the BASF of North America. The BASF tactics of North America fly
in the face of the writer and the German Parent and 7 links were included, relative
ethics, code of conduct et., , at the start of the website data above.
It is the opinion and conclusion of the writer,
based on personal experience and research conducted by the writer, that that
BASF, either with knowledge or without knowledge did:
·
Sell the writer,
defective products.
·
Sell the writer,
products stated to be “ suitable
for all climates” , that are NOT!.
·
Sell the writer
products with a “ expected life- up to 20 years” that will NOT and began
to experience Cohesive failure* 3 times
during 3 year installation period, which were tested and admitted
to be bad product.
·
Sell the writer
products with a “ expected life- up to 20 years” that began to develop
Cohesive Failure* in less than 1-2 years from completion.
NOTE * per C.R. Laurence Co. Inc posting on the
internet,” Cohesive Failure” occurs when the sealant fails to hold together.
·
Sell the writer
products that lacked in field test in all climates, as “suitable
for all climates” and/or “ expected life- up to 20 years”
·
Sell the writer
products “suitable for all climates”
without suitable UV testing.
NOTE! The above statement is based on the
accelerated weathering notation from the various Sonolastic 150 tint base
brochures quoted as, “Atlas 6500
xenon Arc - 2000 hours - no
cracking” . The test stated as conducted,
equals less than one year of
simulated exposure in Florida.
Per the test company Atlas, I year in Florida = 2358 total hours in a
Weather-Ometer® therefore the test claimed for the Sonolastic 150 tint base,
equals approximately 10 months, less
than one year of accelerated weathering test for use a Florida USA climate that
was sold with a “ expected life up to 20 years.
Click Here to view data from Atlas Weather-Ometer, ( see bottom notation
page 2)
The accelerated and or artificial weathering
notation on the BASF Sealant, then
and now is the same. In the opinion of the writer if a product is sold in
Florida, as “Suitable for all climates” and with an “expected life up to 20
years,” the Weather-Ometer® test is approximately
19 years, lacking, of what it should have and/or should
be conducted to make
such a claims for
people to rely on, such as“ suitable
for all climates” “expected life up to 20 years.”It is the opinion of the writer
that Longer testing would be required for other areas of the world to support
the BASF sealant as “suitable for all climates” and “expected life up to 20
years,”
Research by the writer revealed the following,
stated in the opinion of the writer.
·
Based on the
opinion of testing lab stated as Established in 1944 with a advertised 7000
company client base, the BASF sealants sent to them for an opinion, lacked
sufficient UV protection to avoid
“Cohesive Failure.”
·
It is the opinion
of the writer that sufficient and appropriate UV resistance in a product is
required to sell a sealant as “suitable for all climates” & “expected life up to
20 years.”
·
Failed samples of more than one type of
BASF sealant were sent to the test lab. Which were Sonolastic 150 Tint Base also NP-1 and/or NP-2 and again the lab opinion for all
samples of failed sealant provide was
lack UV protection to avoid “Cohesive
Failure.”
·
The Sonolastic 150
tint Base brochure does not indicate in the, specifications breakdown, any
recognizable data relative to UV, sunlight or any other similar term other
than accelerated weathering.
·
Said lab farther
indicated that there was a possibility that the Sonolastic 150 tint base color
pack may have contributed to the sealant ceasing to bond together.
NOTE! In view of the statement immediately above
it is the opinion of the writer that the entire line of Sonolastic 150 tint
base, an architectural line of sealant with 455 colors options, which was
increased to 463 color options, would
require that each of the 455 and/or 463
colors , offered for sale, should be tested individually which would require 455
and/or 463 different test with the color pack for each color option offered.
Click Here to review Test Lab
October 26, 2010 letter
History of the SAGA prior to
completion of installation
The writer’s story or saga
began in 2003 in reliance of Professional
recommendations for the use Sonolastic 150 tint base to be
applied as color matched waterproofing
filler with movement capability or slight movement, for failed brick mortar joints, a term
called tuckpointing.
The Building was built in
1985-86, entirely as commercial construction, with commercial construction elements but for use as a 3 story
custom home. The structure was built by one of Florida’s largest commercial
contractors with 8” concrete
block walls clad with 75,000 Ceramic Glazed brick to produce a Architecturally
pleasing look for a strong building in Florida including long life and low
maintenance.
After 15 years, the structure
had developed failed mortar joints of the upper elevation of the building, which allowed wind driven
rain to damage the interior of the home.
The Brick Manufacturer Glen-Gery was asked to evaluate the cause and
professionally recommend a remedy. Glen-Gery did a field survey and
explained that the Ceramic Glazed brick, will shrink
during the first 10, or so, years of
service which can cause upper elevation brick
joints, with less compaction weight on them, to
develop small cracks both visible and
hairline cracks. Glen-Gery farther
submitted that the shrinkage period had ended so his professional recommendation
was to tuckpoint* the failed mortar joints with
a high quality, color matched sealant to provide a tooled waterproofing barrier of sealant with
movement capability. To employ a
Waterproofing contractor who had
experience in this process.
*Per Trowel Trades.com. “When visual inspection reveals that the mortar
joints are cracking or otherwise deteriorated, restoration is necessary to help
maintain the integrity of wall systems and products. Tuckpointing is an
effective way of decreasing water entry into masonry.”
Tuckpointing is the term most often used to
describe the process of cutting out deteriorated mortar joints (Figure A) in masonry walls to a uniform depth and filling in those joints with fresh
mortar
Bay Area Waterproofing was
recommended as one of
the larger Tampa Florida based companies that had experience and offered the
type of Tuckpointing, recommended by Glen-Gery. Bay Area developed a cost to
provide the waterproofing restoration and Recommended that the tuckpointing be
carried out with Sonneborn® sealant
systems, Sonolastic 150 then the entire 75,000 bricks be treated with BSM 40
as a waterproofing barrier. Per Bay
Area, Sonolastic 150 tint base was
available in 455 colors to obtain a match of the mortar joint color, which
was originally factory, dark tented mortar, selected for architectural contrast. Bay Area produced a color deck with a
wide range of colors and a color selection was made. It had been determined that there
was no factory mix that could be used to maintain the architectural contrast and
appearance without looking like an unsightly patch job. Bay Area highly recommended
Sonneborn® sealant systems and
Sonolastic 150 tint base because of
the color match options and also stated that the
Sonolastic 150 tint base was a better choice than silicone per the
manufacturer. The Sealant was stated to tooled better, cleaned better and would
create a better job. The writer accepted their recommendation as a professional
in the trade.
The work Begin in early 2003 and
the regional manager of the Sonneborn® sealant systems, was called to the job location by the lead Forman of
Bay Area waterproofing. The Sonolastic
150 tint base Brochure was produced that stated Specific Features, Benefits and
where to use. The data stated in form NO. SN-360 stated, fit the criteria of
movement capability and waterproofing. It had a stated “expected life up to 20
years” and “suitable for all climates”.
The Territory sales manager of the
Sonneborn® sealant systems, , remained in constant contact with the work
progress from early 2003 through to completion of work in March of 2006 making “
means and methods” product and
installation recommendations so in effect this work was carried out, entirely
under the intermittent supervision of the Territory sales manager who conducted
on site inspections approximately monthly, throughout the installation process.
The work period was long due to the and tedious job of grinding out
mortar joints, cleaning the grinding residue, filling the void area of the
mortar joint removed with a foam
backer rod and installing the Sonolastic 150 tint base. In addition, the fact
that the sealant “Sonolastic 150 tint base” is a
professional product sold to the trades with a notation made on the
brochure. Supposedly a better product than homeowner products available from
Hardware stores and home builders supply houses.
The Sonolastic 150 tint base came in 3 parts that had to be mixed in 2
galleon pales, packed into large caulking guns and utilized in a short time life
before it had a narrow use life. The
above is mentioned, due to the fact , not
only is Sonolastic 150 tint base a
professional material to be used by highly skilled applicators,
it is very costly to purchase and much more costly to install due to the extra
steps required for installation.
The work progressed and looked
good! Then about a
year into the work phase an area of
the Sonolastic 150 tint base failed
which was replaced by the manufacturer. The
Sonneborn® sealant systems Territory sales manager asked for samples to send in
for testing. At another point later
on, a 2nd failure occurred, samples taken sent off. Later on a 3rd failure
occurred. Early on, the writer was not
aware of the sealant failures during the installation phase and did not become
aware until he viewed some finished work being removed and began to ask
questions. A meeting ensued between
The BASF territory manager and the writer was told that the reason for the
failures were simply bad product. The
reasons for the bad product stated, appeared to be
evasive.
In discussion the territory manager reminded
me that BASF was his new employer that a corporate acquisition was under way. He stated did not know if it the
reason for the failed product was due to changes in manufacturers of the
product, product that had passed its
shelf life or what. The writer inquired what the test results showed and
the territory manager did not offer an
answer, claimed he was not informed of the test results.
NOTE! In later research, it has not been clear to the writer
which Brand was owned by which company
but throughout the process BASF did not declined or made any claim that any of
the waterproofing products used on this project were not from BASF and the
territory sales manager was the same throughout the 3year installation period. It appears
that Degussa owned ChemRex, the name on
the original Sonneborn® brochure Form Number SN-360 © 2000 ChemRex® Apparently
Degussa did own ChemRex and the Sonneborn sealant system line May 7, 2001 which
is apparent from a Degussa
“Construction Chemicals Americas” Letter head printed from the internet. Said
letter was a letter addressed to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission relative
to what appears to be a failure of a
product Embeco 636 (CMTR) Grout. By April 2005 BASF was posting
Sonolastic 150 Tint Base data on the internet which still in time
before the acquisition of Degussa’s construction chemicals
business was completed, published December 16, 2005, Commissioning/Effective
from July1, 2006 for $ 2.700.000.000 ERO.
The BASF SONOLASTIC® 150 TINT
BASE Sealant had a stated life expectancy of up to 20 years but failed 3 times
during the 3 year installation period which was concerning. BASF had stated the sealant which failed during
the installation was “bad product”, which they paid to replace and assured that
the problems with the bad product had
been resolved also stated, no more
sealant would fail but if it did, that
BASF would have the sealant replaced at
no cost to the writer . The BASF Territory Manager stated
replacement of material and labor was a warranty option of the company and
stated that BASF was aware and had given him the authority to replace any future
failure at no cost for labor or material
But BASF Breached this commitment.
At the completion of the work in
March of 2006 the writer
had another meeting with the Territory sales manager
and reminded him that The BASF SONOLASTIC® 150 TINT BASE Sealant was installed
under the guidance, sanction and constant inspection of himself, as the
BASF territory sales manager. That the
product was recommended and provided for
the purpose intended and under
his sanction, almost monthly, for 3 years. That work had been allowed to
continue, once the writer
became aware of the 3 failures , based on
and in reliance of the commitment and promise made by him, for BASF. This fact
and the promised assurance was made
in front of 2 water proofers who were
asked if they would have an interest in returning to the job, at any
time in the future, should any more sealant failures occur. An
agreement was made between BASF and the waterproofers which I viewed as a
confidence builder of the promise made.
The writer
trusted BASF- who had become the
world’s largest chemical company and continued to spend good money
in reliance of the promise made. It was
believed that the claim of bad product came to the
job because of the BASF acquisition of
Degussa. Now the writer believes that the product is
not “suitable for use all climates” nor can it achieve an expected life of
20 years. It is evident that BASF has
known of problems with the use of this Sealant in Florida for years but instead
of abiding by the promises made they have not. Instead of ceasing to sell the
product in Florida they have not, to my knowledge. At all times relevant it appeared
that BASF would either pay to have the product replaced as promised, at no cost
or pay the amount spent to have the BASF products replaced
however, that never occurred!
The writer is of the opinion that
professional grade high tech, high
dollar sealants should, at least provide a service life equal or greater than
sealants available to any homeowner. The Sonolastic 150 Ting
Tint base has a statement “For
Professionals use only “not for sale to or use by the general public” . Such a
statement being made, one would
reasonably expect greater results from these trade sealants as opposed to
homeowner Sealants from Hardware
stores, Home Depot’s, Lowes, etc. which provide stated warranty up to 50 years. One would
expect the world’s largest chemical
company , with over 100 years of experience , to be able to compete with others
manufacturers and warranties such as:
·
DAP Premium Outdoor Sealant
50 Year satisfaction guarantee
·
DuPont siliconized acrylic caulk
40 year guarantee
·
White Lightining siliconized
acrylic latex caulk
40 Year guarantee
·
DAP Acrylic Latex caulk plus silicone
35 yr durability guarantee
·
GE Premium Waterproof Silicone. Lifetime
for the time you own your home.
The Saga presented in this
website is the experience of the writer and statements made are in the writers
opinion! The Purpose of this
website is to Caution People about premature Failure problems that may occur
with the use of some BASF waterproofing products including the warranty and
ethics tactics that they may encounter from BASF, if premature failure occurs.
If you have
experienced BASF -Sonneborne® Sealant Failures or non professional, non ethical
dealings with BASF and would like to share your thoughts or experiences, or if
you or any of your customers would like to joine a class action suit, you may
Click
Here
All rights reserved.
