(Slide Show)
Home - Photo Albums - Documents List - Contact Forms

BASF Sealant Failure  



This website https://BASFSealantFailure.com© was developed as a public service, to warn and caution people - “worldwide” regarding sealant failures of  Sonneborn®


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 .


·         Where to Use” IN PLACE OF SILICONE SEALANTS.”



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.

Real Time Web Analytics