Ruff v. Parex, Inc. was a North Carolina class action over EIFS (Exterior Insulation and Finish Systems) on homes, filed in New Hanover County Superior Court. The court certified the class on September 18, 1996. Settlements with Bonsal, Continental, Dryvit, Sto and Parex followed, with a fairness hearing on March 17, 2000. All claim deadlines have passed. The last one was January 17, 2003.
Last reviewed: September 2026. Sources are listed at the end of this page.
What was Ruff v. Parex about?
Ruff v. Parex was a class action over EIFS on North Carolina homes. The case was Civil Action No. 96-CVS-0059 in New Hanover County Superior Court.[1]
The North Carolina Business Court described the local setting. It wrote that New Hanover County was the focal point of the EIFS problem, and that local building officials were among the first in the country to recognize and deal with it.[1] The same opinion notes that EIFS was first used in Europe after World War II.[1]
Newspaper coverage at the time shows the scale of the problem. The Virginian-Pilot reported on March 3, 1996 that a North Carolina task force found elevated moisture in 98 percent of its test sample, and that the average repair cost in Wilmington was $25,000 per home.[4] For the technical background, see our EIFS guide.
Who were the defendants?
The 1999 Business Court opinion names nine defendants.[1]
- Parex
- Sto Corp.
- W.R. Bonsal
- Continental Stucco Products
- Senergy
- Thomas Waterproof Coatings
- Dryvit Systems
- U.S. Gypsum
- Shields Industries
What happened in the case, and when?
The case ran from class certification in 1996 to settlement claim deadlines in 2000 and 2003.
| Date | Event | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Fall 1995 | New Hanover County inspectors seek a state moratorium on EIFS. | Virginian-Pilot[4] |
| September 18, 1996 | The court certifies the class. | NC Business Court[1] |
| December 1, 1998 | The NC Court of Appeals decides an appeal in the case. By then 462 plaintiffs had opted out of the class. | NC Court of Appeals[2] |
| June 17, 1999 | The NC Business Court issues its opinion (1999 NCBC 6). It mentions an earlier settlement with Senergy but does not state the amount. | NC Business Court[1] |
| March 17, 2000 | Fairness hearing on settlements with Bonsal, Continental, Dryvit, Sto and Parex. | Settlement notice[3] |
| June 30, 2000 | Claim deadline for the Sto settlement. Passed. | Settlement notice[3] |
| January 17, 2003 | Claim deadline for the Bonsal, Continental, Dryvit and Parex settlements. Passed. | Settlement notice[3] |
Who was in the settlement class, and what did it offer?
The class covered owners of one- or two-family North Carolina homes or townhouses clad with a settling defendant’s EIFS as of September 18, 1996. The court’s long-form settlement notice set out these terms.[3]
- Claimants against Bonsal, Continental, Dryvit or Parex could receive $6.00 per square foot of EIFS, subject to conditions.
- The Sto settlement set up a $2.5 million fund for claimants.
The notice lists the case as No. 96-CV-0059. The Business Court opinion uses 96-CVS-0059.[1][3]
Can you still file a claim?
No. The Sto deadline passed on June 30, 2000, and the deadline for the other settling defendants passed on January 17, 2003.[3] If you have EIFS problems today, start with an EIFS inspection and document what you find. Your state’s statute of limitations and statute of repose may limit any new claim.
What could we not confirm?
Some details of the case are not in the sources we could verify. We do not state them on this page.
- The total dollar value of the Ruff v. Parex settlements, and the amount of the Senergy settlement.
- The date the court gave final approval to the 2000 settlements. The notice gives only the fairness hearing date.
- Any nationwide EIFS class settlement outside North Carolina.
How reliable are the sources?
The court opinions are the primary sources for this page. The 1999 Business Court opinion comes from the North Carolina Judicial Branch website, and the 1998 appeals decision comes from Justia.[1][2] The settlement terms come from the court’s long-form notice. That document is hosted on a stucco contractor’s website, not a court site, so treat it as a copy of the notice.[3]
This page is general information, not legal advice. Laws change and vary by state. Check the current statute or talk to a licensed attorney in your state before acting.
Related guides
- EIFS problems, codes and care
- EIFS inspection and moisture testing
- Hardboard and OSB siding class actions
- Statutes of limitations vs. statutes of repose
- Resolving a construction defect dispute
Sources
- North Carolina Business Court, “Ruff v. Parex, Inc., 1999 NCBC 6,” June 17, 1999 (NC Judicial Branch). Also available on CourtListener.
- North Carolina Court of Appeals, “Ruff v. Parex, Inc.,” Dec. 1, 1998 (Justia).
- New Hanover County Superior Court, “Long Form Notice of Proposed Settlements of Class Action, Ruff v. Parex, No. 96-CV-0059.” Court notice hosted on a stucco contractor’s website, not a court site.
- The Virginian-Pilot, “Problems with EIFS May Be Widespread,” Mar. 3, 1996 (Virginia Tech archive).