Industry powerhouses Pella and Lowes are facing a lawsuit brought against them by a customer alleging the two companies manufactured, sold and delivered defective hurricane-rated windows. The plaintiff, Geofill Material Technologies LLC, was working under contract with the University of Texas Marine Science Institute (UTMSI) to furnish and install hurricane-rated windows as part of its Wilson Cottages Duplex Housing Project. Geofill alleges that defective hurricane-rated vinyl windows supplied for the project suffered widespread cracking, causing project delays and more than $1.6 million in total damages. Pella and Lowe’s deny the allegations, dispute liability and damages, and are seeking to move the case to federal court, with Pella requesting a jury trial and dismissal of the claims.
According to court documents, Pella vinyl windows were acquired, along with other materials, at a Lowe’s in San Antonio, Texas. The first purchase was made in October 2022 and in an initial filing Geofill representatives said that the company stored the windows “securely” at its warehouse prior to installation in September 2023. Less than two months later, after installation began, Geofill personnel “observed hairline cracks in the window frames of several installed units for the first time,” prompting a delay in the project. A month after the alleged cracks were first witnessed, UTMSI hired AG/CM Inc., a professional construction management firm, which inspected and documented the windows and the damages, noting that five buildings were affected. According to Geofill officials, “the report confirmed that numerous windows exhibited structural deficiencies and visible cracking, inconsistent with acceptable manufacturing or installation standards.” In light of the report, Geofill indicates it canceled the pending orders for additional units for the project and began the process of returning the defective windows. The company further states that attempts to remedy the problem were made in the first quarter of 2024, including Microsoft Teams meetings and an April 2024 on-site inspection by a Pella representative.
Replacement windows were ordered, but Geofill alleges that “problems persisted,” as did an on-site inspection by Pella representatives in May 2024, only to be followed by the installation company’s discovery of 60 more damaged windows before June 2024. In the wake of one of the on-site visits, “a Pella inspector indicated that defective packaging was the cause of the damaged windows,” court documents said. Geofill claims that subsequent replacement windows, in new packaging, contained the same deficiencies, “indicating that the issue was not fully resolved by addressing the packaging alone,” the company alleged.
In October 2024, just over a year after the installation began, Pella, Lowe’s and Geofill representatives met at the latter’s office, resulting in the window manufacturer issuing what the installer described in the initial paperwork as a “reconciliation statement and ‘good faith offer’ to Geofill for consideration.” The proposal included “a proposed sales goodwill gesture in the amount of $17,764.82,” which Geofill declared “insufficient to address the extensive damages, delays, and costs,” the company had incurred.
In another meeting, a month later, Geofill officials said they calculated that 204 of the 211 windows the company ordered from Pella required replacement, and that 31 of the replacement windows were also found to be damaged. Read Consulting, hired by Geofill to conduct a failure analysis on one of the defective windows, “determined that the cracks in the window frames were the result of an ‘overload failure,’ indicating that the frames lacked sufficient structural integrity to withstand normal shipping stress.”
Per the court document, Read Consulting determined that the failure was due to “inadequate design and the strength of the window frame … compounded by improper shipping configurations,” not because of installer handling or environmental exposure. Geofill alleges that Pella and Lowe’s “violated the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act by representing goods as being of a particular quality and durability when they were not, failing to disclose known defects in the product, and breach of implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for that particular purpose.” The copmany further argues that the window defects directly caused delay, rework and additional project expenses on the UTMSI Wilson Cottages project.
Filing its Petition in November 2025, the installer claims costs from the delay alone total $587,280.18 and “extended overhead costs calculated under the Eichleay Formula for an 11-month delay amounting to $1,051,072.74,” for a total amount of damages due to the defective windows and the subsequent delays being $1,638,352.91.
Geofill is suing on the grounds of breach of contract, breach of warranty, violation of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA), and negligence.
Pella and Lowe’s deny the allegations. Among other things, Pella argued that Geofill is not a consumer under the DTPA and that the “Plaintiff’s fault caused at least some of Plaintiff’s injury under both claims.”
Pella requested a jury trial and, in its Request for Relief, asked that claims against the company be dismissed with prejudice.
Lowe’s also denied the material allegations, arguing that Geofill’s claims for negligence and violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act are barred by a two-year statute of limitations and that it is “not liable to Plaintiff for the amount of damages claimed to the extent Plaintiff failed to mitigate its damages.” If found liable for damages, Lowe’s representation indicated in its Original Answer that the company will seek a reduction of damages under the Texas proportionate-responsibility statue.
The two defendants are seeking to get the lawsuit moved from the 131st Judicial District Court of Bexar County, Texas, to the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, San Antonio Division. The Notice of Removal was filed earlier this month.