Superior Court of Washington in and for Pierce County
Kurtis R. and Pamela R. Mayer v. Sto Industries, Inc.
Special Verdict Form. We, the jury, make the following answers to the questions submitted by the Court.
- Question 1. Did Sto supply a product which was not reasonably safe because adequate warnings or instructions were not provided with the product? Answer yes or no
- Answer: YES
- Question 2. Was Sto negligent in that the product was not reasonably safe because adequate warnings or instructions were not provided after the product was manufactured? Answer yes or no
- Answer: YES
- Question 3. Was the unsafe condition as found in question 1 or 2 a proximate cause of damages to the Mayers? Answer yes or no
- Answer: YES
- Question 4. Did Sto violate the Washington State Consumer Protection Act? Answer yes or no
- Answer: YES
- Question 5. Was Sto's violation of the Consumer Protection Act a proximate cause of the damage to the Mayer's? Answer yes or no
- Answer: YES
-
From the Mayers:
The bulk of my costs in this case have been mostly attorneys fees, appeals fees and expert witness fees for two jury trials. These I should recover and be compensated under the Washington State Consumer Protection Act. I am certain that Sto will appeal this decision and verdict. The time between Sto's petition for appeal and the decision of the Appeals Court and Supreme Court review is about two years. I am prepared to wait till the process plays out rather than negotiate for a lesser amount.
From my perspective it was never about money but integrity and honesty and I have proven my point to all those that will use this EIFS system in the future. I am glad its over its been a very long six and a half weeks. Five lawyers and a litigation specialist and a para legal in the court room on their side against one lawyer and a part time para legal was overwhelming. Their list of expert witnesses from all over the map was not cheap either some were truly paid liars who made remarks that were simply outrageous.
I thank the wonderful people who came forward to testify in my behalf because they felt I was wronged especially Mark Williams, his multiple cross country trips from Pa. are much appreciated beyond words. His knowledge and integrity made the day for our side.
I thank my incredibly talented and sincere, hardworking, young lawyer J.B Meade of the firm of Gordon, Thomas, Honeywell, Malanca, Peterson and Daheim, who knew shortly after the first trial that a very bad mistake had been made by both judge and jury after he discovered the internal memos of Sto which stated they knew their "product was inherently flawed" They owed an obligation to tell the world that the system as it was designed had a very high failure rate. To have a Superior and jury verdict overturned by the Court of Appeals is not a very common occurrence. JB Meade knew those memos might have changed the outcome of the first trial and he was correct.
I also thank the jury whose lives were interrupted for six weeks and took time to deliberate and come forward with their best judgment. Its too bad I cannot sit down with each and every one of them and discuss my seven year trauma with this product called EIFS. I want to thank all of those in cyberspace that have watched and monitored this problem through EIFS dot Org as well as on the Internet under Mayer vs. Sto. I am so grateful to be living in America where people will take justice so seriously by serving their community and country in such a magnanimous way as jurors. The system may not be perfect but it works very well as I have seen today.
I am appreciative to the judge whose judicial demeanor was beyond approach. Thanks to all our friends for your moral support.
Kurt & Pam Mayer
05/15 
