Hubbry Logo
Chinese drywallChinese drywallMain
Open search
Chinese drywall
Community hub
Chinese drywall
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Chinese drywall
Chinese drywall
Chinese drywall
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

"Chinese drywall" refers to an environmental health issue involving defective drywall manufactured in China, imported to the United States and used in residential construction between 2001 and 2009 – affecting "an estimated 100,000 homes in more than 20 states".[1]

In samples of contaminated drywall, laboratory tests will detect off-gassing of volatile chemicals and sulfurous gases — including carbon disulfide, carbonyl sulfide, and hydrogen sulfide. The emissions worsen as temperature and humidity rise, will give off a sulfuric (rotten egg) odor and will cause copper surfaces to turn black and powdery, a chemical process indicative of a hydrogen sulfide reaction and an early indication of contaminated drywall. Copper pipes, electrical wiring, and air conditioner coils are affected, as well as silver jewelry.

Homeowners have reported health symptoms including respiratory problems such as asthma attacks, chronic coughing and difficulty breathing, as well as chronic headaches and sinus issues.[2][3][4]

The copper coils on this air conditioner unit are blackened and corroded.

Background

[edit]

Drywall, also known as plasterboard, is a building material typically consisting of gypsum-based plaster extruded between two thick sheets of paper and kiln-dried.

Drywall was imported by the United States during the construction boom between 2004 and 2007, spurred by a shortage of American-made drywall due to the rebuilding demand of nine hurricanes that hit Florida from 2004 to 2005, and widespread damage caused along the Gulf Coast by Hurricane Katrina in 2005.

An analysis covering drywall imports since January 2006 showed that more than 550 million pounds (250,000 t) of Chinese drywall was brought into the United States since then, enough to build 60,000 average-sized homes.[5]

The green and red coloration in these copper components is an indicator that they were subject to typical corrosion, and not as a result of hydrogen sulfide emitted from contaminated imported drywall.[6]

Homeowners alleging contaminated drywall have reported numerous incidents of corroding copper and other metals in their homes. The Florida Department of Health advised homeowners worried about tainted drywall to check copper tubing coils located in air conditioning and refrigeration units for signs of corrosion caused by hydrogen sulfide, as these are usually the first signs of the issue. Under normal circumstances, copper corrosion leaves it a blue/green or dark red color, whereas corrosion as a result of hydrogen sulfide exposure leaves a black ash-like corrosion. Homeowners who have verified that their home contains contaminated Chinese drywall are advised to replace any suspect drywall, as well as any potentially damaged copper electrical wiring, fire alarm systems, copper piping, and gas piping.[6]

Affected locales

[edit]

In the United States, most complaints have come from states in the Southeast, where a warm and humid climate seems to encourage the emissions.[7] According to published reports, "Chinese drywall was used in the construction of thousands of homes, mainly in the South, after a series of hurricanes in 2005 and before the housing bubble burst."[8]

The states of Florida (56%), Louisiana (18%), Mississippi (6%) and Alabama (6%) made up 86% of the 3,952 cases reported to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) as of April 19, 2012.[9] More than 700 complaints had been filed with the Florida Department of Health.[10][11] Sources estimated that from 60,000 to 100,000 homes could be affected.[12][13]

The CPSC has released a guide for identifying the symptoms of a home affected by the problem drywall.[14]

Sources

[edit]

Knauf Plasterboard Tianjin Co., Ltd.,[15] part of Knauf Gips KG,[16] has been identified as a major producer of imported Chinese drywall. Though a number of other Chinese companies are believed to have produced defective drywall, Knauf's name comes up most frequently, because the company prints its name on its products. Much of the other contaminated drywall has no markings, making it difficult to identify its origin.[17][18]

Dramatic increases in new home construction, coupled with the reconstruction effort after hurricane damage, led to a soaring increase in the quantity of imported Chinese drywall. Time magazine reported that more than 550 million pounds (250,000 t) of drywall was imported from China from 2006 to 2009, including much from the known principal manufacturer of the contaminated drywall, Knauf. However, domestic drywall manufacturing averages over 15 million short tons (30 billion pounds; 14 million tonnes) per year, leaving imported Chinese drywall with only a small portion of the market. It is estimated that this imported drywall has been used to construct approximately 60,000 homes.[19]

From January to September 2006, 52 million pounds (24,000 t) of Knauf drywall were unloaded in New Orleans, three-quarters of it from Knauf Tianjin, and at least 37 million pounds (17,000 t) of Knauf drywall was shipped directly from China to Florida ports.[20]

Drywall usually has a source printed on the back. Chinese drywall may be marked "Made in China", "China", "Knauf Tianjin", or have no marking at all. A home may have been built with drywall from several sources, American and imported.[21]

In April 2009, home improvement stores The Home Depot and Lowe's confirmed from their suppliers that no drywall sold in their stores was imported from China. Lowes did eventually settle lawsuits by offering up to $100,000 for each affected home but denied selling Chinese drywall.[22]

On November 23, 2009, CBS News reported that they had done a drywall study to compare American and Chinese drywall. Random samples of new American-made drywall in six U.S. cities, new Chinese-made drywall from China, and samples of drywall from five damaged U.S. homes were collected and sent to the University of Florida to be tested by a team of researchers led by professor Tim Townsend, a scientist and leading expert on the effects of drywall on the environment. The report results stated:

As expected, the contaminated Chinese samples gave off high levels of sulfur gases. But all but one of the U.S. samples emitted sulfur gases, as well — not at levels as high as the defective Chinese product. There were some American products that we tested that had higher emission than some of the new Chinese products that we tested.[23]

Federal inquiries

[edit]

Discussions began in January 2009 between the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Florida officials. In February 2009, U.S. Senator Bill Nelson of Florida sent a letter to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and the EPA, asking them to jointly investigate whether the Chinese drywall is toxic, and to determine the extent of potential damage to homes. The Consumer Product Safety Commission launched a formal investigation.[24]

In April 2009, as concerns about the defective drywall grew, Senator Nelson of Florida and Senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana jointly introduced a resolution and bill urging the Consumer Product Safety Commission to recall Chinese-made drywall and temporarily ban its import.[25]

In May 2009, the U.S. House of Representatives passed an amendment to the Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act (H.R. 1728) that would require the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to study the effects of tainted Chinese drywall on foreclosures and the availability of property insurance.[26] This measure did not pass as a standalone bill, but was incorporated into the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Subtitle H (Miscellaneous Provisions), Section 1494), signed into law on July 21, 2010.

In November 2009, the CPSC reported on an indoor air study conducted by the Center for Disease Control (CDC) comparing 41 "complaint" homes in five states with 10 control homes built around the same time. The report found a "strong association" between the imported drywall and levels of hydrogen sulfide gas and metal corrosion in the complaint homes.[27]

Potential causes

[edit]

Lab comparisons of Chinese- and American-made drywall show significantly higher levels of pyrite in the Chinese material. This suggests that pyrite oxidation may be the source of the sulfur compounds released by Chinese drywall.[28]

The problems have been attributed to the use of fly ash in the drywall, which degrades in the presence of heat and moisture; although United States' drywall uses fly ash as well, the process used creates a cleaner final product.[29]

According to a 2010 laboratory study, one hundred percent of affected drywall samples obtained from homes located in the southeastern United States tested positive for the presence of Acidithiobacillus ferrooxidans, an iron and sulfur reducing bacterium. Samples of non-contaminated drywall were found to contain only minuscule levels of A. ferrooxidans.[30]

Forensic analyses suggest that disproportionation of elemental sulfur to hydrogen sulfide and sulfuric acid, caused by bacteria, was the primary cause of the malodors.[31]

Potential health concerns

[edit]

There are few studies exploring the effects of long-term low-level exposure to sulfur gases. However, it is believed that short-term exposure, over the period of a few hours, can result in sore throat, eye irritation, cough, shortness of breath, chest pain, and nausea. Long term exposure, over a period of weeks, is believed to cause chronic fatigue, insomnia, loss of appetite, dizziness, irritability, headaches, and memory loss.

The Center for Disease Control, in collaboration with the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, released a guide indicating the residents of affected homes reported irritated and itchy eyes and skin, difficulty breathing, persistent cough, bloody noses, runny noses, recurrent headaches, sinus infection, and asthma attacks.[4]

Scam warnings

[edit]

The Florida Attorney General's office has warned of several deceptive practices targeted at homeowners, including bogus test kits, home inspection offers, ozone generators and chemical cleaners. The warnings point out that the presence of defective drywall cannot be determined by testing a home's air, or corrected by chemical sprays or ozone generators.[32]

News reports have pointed out "convicted scammers, thieves and uncertified workers who illegally pose as licensed contractors" and profit from homeowner confusion and panic. The Palm Beach Post found that of 47 remediation and inspection companies checked, 26 were created since January 2009, and only 18 of the 47 were run by licensed contractors. In Florida, lack of legal regulation allows anyone to "remediate" drywall problems, regardless of training or professional qualifications. [citation needed]

Lawsuits

[edit]

Class action lawsuits claiming respiratory problems and headaches have been filed by Florida homeowners against home builders, drywall suppliers, and a Chinese drywall manufacturer.

In October 2010, U.S. District Judge Eldon E. Fallon in New Orleans endorsed a settlement in which Knauf Group will pay for the repair of 300 homes of the 3,000 involved in one particular case.[33] Several insurance companies are participating in the agreement. The homes are in Alabama, Florida, Louisiana and Mississippi, but no Texas and Virginia homes are affected by the agreement.[33]

Home supply retailer Lowe's has denied claims that they have sold contaminated drywall imported from China. Numerous class action lawsuits were brought against the company, and as of October 28, 2010, Lowe's has agreed to a settlement that may award victims up to $100,000 for damages caused by contaminated drywall purchased at their stores.[34]

Insurance coverage and tax deductions

[edit]

Controversy has arisen over whether the damage will be covered under the insurance policies for home insurance or general liability insurance. In March 2010, a New Orleans judge ruled that the damage was covered under a home insurance policy.[35] It is unknown whether the general liability insurance will cover the claims. The standard policy contained an exception to an exclusion for pollution which allowed coverage if the pollution came from the products of the insured, but insurers had revised the policies to incorporate a "total pollution exclusion" which has no exception. Even without a total pollution exclusion, around 2005 insurers began inserting another provision to deny construction defect claims.[36] Whether or not insurance coverage will be granted generally depends on state law and a state court's interpretation, but in this case may be determined for multiple states under the Louisiana multiple district litigation (MDL) overseen by a federal court.[37]

On September 30, 2010, the Internal Revenue Service announced it would provide tax relief for homeowners affected by property damage caused by imported Chinese drywall. The IRS has categorized the copper corrosion from the sulfur gasses emitted by the imported drywall as "casualty loss", and is in a similar category to property damage after a catastrophic event, such as a hurricane. However, homeowners can only claim a deduction after repairing the affected area(s), and much controversy has arisen because of the great out-of-pocket expense to affected homeowners.[38][39]

Radioactivity concerns

[edit]

Early reporting raised concerns about the presence of phosphogypsum, gypsum formed as a by-product of processing phosphate ore into fertilizer with sulfuric acid. Phosphogypsum is radioactive due to the presence of naturally occurring uranium and radium in the phosphate ore. The substance has been banned for use in U.S. construction since 1989.[40] Tests of drywall samples by the EPA and the Florida Department of Health showed radioactivity at levels no higher than those ordinarily found in the natural environment.[41]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Chinese drywall

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
![Blackened and corroded copper coils on air conditioner unit from Chinese drywall exposure][float-right] Chinese drywall denotes gypsum wallboard manufactured in and imported to the primarily between 2004 and 2008, which contained elevated levels of sulfur compounds that off-gassed and other corrosive agents, accelerating the degradation of metal components such as wiring and air conditioning evaporator coils in affected residences. Empirical measurements in impacted homes have documented concentrations correlating with rates up to 100 times higher than in control structures built with domestic . The issue emerged prominently in following post-hurricane reconstruction demands that outstripped U.S. production capacity, prompting widespread use of the cheaper import, though cases appeared in over 40 states. Investigations by federal agencies, including the Consumer Product Safety Commission and Environmental Protection Agency, confirmed the causal link between the drywall's strontium sulfate impurities and the observed pitting and sulfidation on metallic surfaces, distinguishing it from normal atmospheric . Homeowners reported persistent sulfurous odors and, in some instances, health symptoms like respiratory irritation, though direct causation for illnesses remains unsubstantiated beyond anecdotal accounts amid confounding factors such as mold or unrelated exposures. The defect spurred extensive litigation, with manufacturers facing class-action settlements totaling hundreds of millions for remediation involving full drywall replacement, electrical rewiring, and HVAC overhauls—measures deemed necessary to halt ongoing emissions and prevent fire hazards from compromised circuits. While the scandal highlighted vulnerabilities in global supply chains for construction materials, subsequent import restrictions and testing protocols have mitigated recurrence, though legacy properties continue to burden owners with elevated maintenance costs.

Historical Context

Import Surge and Supply Shortages

In the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and Wilma in 2005, the experienced acute shortages of domestically produced , exacerbated by widespread destruction in , , and , as well as a concurrent national housing construction boom that strained supply chains. Reconstruction efforts in the Gulf Coast region demanded massive quantities of building materials, with domestic manufacturers unable to meet the sudden surge in demand due to production lags and damaged facilities. U.S. builders and distributors turned to imported alternatives, particularly from , where lower production costs enabled rapid scaling to fill the gap; shipping records indicate that Chinese drywall imports escalated significantly starting in 2005, totaling over 500 million pounds between 2004 and 2008. Approximately 70% of these imports entered through ports, facilitating distribution to affected rebuilding sites in , , and nearby states. This volume equated to enough material for an estimated 60,000 to 100,000 homes, primarily installed in new constructions and renovations during the mid-2000s housing peak. Initial complaints about the imported drywall surfaced in 2008, concentrated in and homes built or repaired post-hurricanes, with homeowners reporting persistent odors and early signs of corrosion linked to the material's off-gassing. The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission received its first consumer report on December 22, 2008, marking the onset of widespread documentation of supply-driven installation issues.

Key Manufacturers and Production Practices

The primary manufacturers implicated in producing defective Chinese drywall, as identified by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) through emissions testing, include Knauf Plasterboard () Co., Ltd., Taishan Gypsum Co. Ltd., and Taihe Dongshan Gypsum Co. Ltd., among approximately ten entities whose products exhibited emission rates up to 100 times higher than non-Chinese samples. These firms, operating facilities in regions like and , supplied the bulk of the imported linked to complaints between 2001 and 2009. Chinese production practices deviated from U.S. norms primarily in raw material composition and processing, with gypsum boards incorporating uncalcined or less refined ore that retained higher levels of elemental —detected at 83 to 119 parts per million (ppm) in affected samples versus undetectable amounts in U.S.-manufactured equivalents. Interagency analyses, including those by the CPSC and EPA, revealed elevated strontium concentrations (2,570 to 2,670 mg/kg) in Chinese drywall, often associated with inclusions, contrasting with U.S. levels ranging from 224 to 1,130 mg/kg; these disparities stem from sourcing from deposits or recycled sources with inherent mineral impurities not subjected to equivalent purification steps. U.S. manufacturing adheres to standards like ASTM C1396, emphasizing calcined derived from controlled and byproducts with rigorous impurity screening to minimize volatile compounds, whereas Chinese processes prioritized rapid scaling with locally available, unrefined inputs lacking comparable end-product verification for off-gassing potential. Empirical tests confirmed no fly ash presence in the defective Chinese samples, underscoring that defects arose from matrix contaminants rather than additive fillers common in some U.S. formulations. These material sourcing differences, without evidence of intentional adulteration, directly contributed to the observed chemical instabilities under standard curing and installation conditions.

Material Properties

Chemical Composition and Defects

Chinese drywall primarily consists of ( dihydrate, CaSO₄·2H₂O) core encased in facing, similar to domestic varieties, but exhibits elevated levels of impurities including and elemental . Analyses of seven Chinese samples revealed mean concentrations of 3,016 mg/kg in the core, compared to 737 mg/kg in ten non-Chinese samples, with statistically significant differences (p=0.0432). Elemental was detected in six of seven Chinese samples (mean 143 mg/kg) and facings (mean 138 mg/kg), while absent in all non-Chinese counterparts (p=0.0084). These anomalies correlate with manufacturing practices involving substandard sourcing of raw materials, such as high-sulfur potentially mixed with contaminants like residues, rather than verified incorporation of fly ash, which microscopic examinations found no evidence of in tested samples. Defects manifest as off-gassing of reduced sulfur compounds, including (H₂S), (CS₂), and (COS), at rates exceeding those of U.S.-manufactured . Chamber tests by the EPA and showed Chinese samples emitting these volatiles at higher concentrations, with COS levels reaching 270–640 ppbv (estimated) and CS₂ up to 400 ppbv, versus undetectable or <2 ppbv in non-Chinese samples. In specific cases, H₂S emissions from certain Chinese products were 100 times greater than from non-corrosive , exacerbated by humidity and temperature promoting reactions involving embedded elemental sulfur or iron disulfide (pyrite). These emissions stem from inadequate purification processes during accelerated production to meet post-2005 U.S. demand surges, allowing reactive impurities to persist in the gypsum matrix and release gases under moist conditions. Strontium levels exceeding 1,200 ppm, alongside carbonate indicators, serve as chemical markers for such defective batches.

Identification and Testing Protocols

Identification of defective Chinese drywall commences with a two-step threshold inspection outlined by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). The initial phase involves visual examination for blackening or corrosion on copper electrical wiring, air conditioning evaporator coils, or other metallic components, which manifests as a dark sulfide coating due to hydrogen sulfide exposure. This corrosion pattern, distinct from uniform pitting seen in non-drywall-related failures, must align with drywall installation dates between 2001 and 2009, when imports surged. A persistent sulfurous odor, akin to rotten eggs, often accompanies these signs, though it dissipates over time and is not definitive alone. Confirmatory indicators include manufacturer stamps on the backside of drywall panels, such as "KNAUF," specific batch codes, or explicit "MADE IN CHINA" markings, which correlate with problem installations in CPSC-documented cases. Empirical data from interagency investigations link these visual and olfactory cues to off-gassing of sulfur compounds, with non-Chinese drywall exhibiting such widespread failures far less frequently. Advanced testing employs portable X-ray fluorescence (XRF) spectrometry to detect elevated strontium concentrations in the gypsum core, typically exceeding 1,200–1,800 ppm in defective samples versus under 100 ppm in domestic equivalents, serving as a proxy for Chinese sourcing due to mineral impurities in raw materials. However, XRF results require cross-verification, as strontium variability exists and isolated high readings do not confirm defectiveness without corrosion evidence; combining with sulfur-to-calcium ratios enhances specificity. Emissions protocols involve small- or full-chamber tests per ASTM D5116 guidelines, measuring reactive sulfur gas release like hydrogen sulfide above baseline levels (e.g., >10 µg/m³), which empirically distinguishes problematic imports from standard products through controlled humidity and temperature simulations. These methods prioritize causal links via off-gassing data over anecdotal reports, with peer-reviewed analyses affirming higher and emissions in verified Chinese cohorts compared to rare U.S.-manufactured anomalies.

Geographical Impact

Primary Affected Regions

The majority of verified complaints regarding Chinese drywall originated from southeastern U.S. states with humid climates, particularly Florida and Louisiana, which together accounted for more than 75% of all reports submitted to the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). The CPSC documented approximately 4,051 homeowner reports across 44 states, the District of Columbia, American Samoa, and Puerto Rico as of the latest available data, with Florida, Louisiana, and Virginia registering the highest volumes. Gulf Coast states such as Mississippi and Alabama also emerged as notable hotspots, correlating with intensive post-Hurricane Katrina reconstruction between 2005 and 2006 that increased demand for imported building materials. Distribution beyond these core areas occurred primarily through multi-family residential and commercial projects, extending complaints to over 30 states by 2009. A 2012 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) analysis, referenced in CDC assessments, identified construction from 2001 to 2008 in humid southeastern locales as the predominant vector for affected properties based on inspection patterns and sulfur emission testing. Empirical evidence from CPSC and state-level inspections underscored limited prevalence in non-southern states, where drier conditions and lower import usage during peak shortage periods constrained verifiable cases despite scattered reports.

Estimated Scale and Prevalence

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) and Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) have estimated that defective Chinese drywall was installed in approximately 3,000 to 6,500 homes nationwide, based on verified complaints, import data modeling, and field investigations conducted through 2012. By 2011, the CPSC had documented around 4,000 to 6,000 homeowner reports across 44 states, though these figures primarily reflect cases with observable or complaints rather than exhaustive surveys. No substantial increase in confirmed cases has occurred since 2010, as imports ceased following heightened scrutiny and voluntary recalls, confining the issue to structures built or renovated primarily between 2001 and 2009. Prevalence remains challenging to pinpoint due to undetected installations in finished homes lacking visible symptoms, such as in attics or behind walls, which may evade routine inspections; however, empirical grounding comes from claims and litigation involving thousands of properties, including multi-state class actions that verified defects in several hundred to low thousands of homes per settlement. Higher estimates of 60,000 to 100,000 affected homes, derived from total import volumes exceeding 500 million pounds between 2004 and 2008, have circulated in analyses but lack direct corroboration from property-level testing and likely overstate verifiable prevalence by assuming uniform defect rates across shipments. In context, Chinese drywall imports totaled about 230,850 metric tons from to , representing just 0.5% of all consumed in the United States during that period, underscoring the problem as a localized defect in a vast market rather than a systemic in building materials. This limited share aligns with the niche scale of verified impacts, concentrated in high-import regions during post-hurricane reconstruction booms.

Property Damage Effects

Corrosion Mechanisms

Defective imported from , primarily installed between 2001 and 2008, emits elevated levels of (H₂S) and other reduced sulfur compounds due to high elemental content, with emission rates up to 100 times greater than non-Chinese drywall as measured in chamber tests by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). These gases react chemically with metals such as and silver, forming black (Cu₂S) and (Ag₂S) through tarnishing reactions, where H₂S acts as the primary corrosive agent confirmed by engineering analyses linking sulfide emissions directly to observed metal degradation. The process accelerates under elevated temperature and humidity, conditions common in affected regions like and , as off-gassing rates increase with environmental moisture promoting sulfur compound release from the gypsum matrix. Off-gassing initiates shortly after installation, often within months, leading to detectable buildup over 1 to 3 years in HVAC systems and wiring, as evidenced by metallurgical examinations of components from homes built in 2006–2007 showing rapid sulfide layer formation. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) metallurgical study corroborated that the uniform black films on surfaces align with exposure to reduced sulfur species rather than atmospheric oxidation. This sulfide-induced corrosion differs from normal atmospheric wear, which produces green or carbonate patinas without the characteristic black, powdery deposits or accelerated failure rates; control samples from unaffected homes exhibit no such signatures, while affected metals display exclusive Cu₂S layers absent in standard exposure tests. Laboratory differentiation relies on confirming composition over , with pitting occasionally noted on coils but primarily uniform distinguishing it from or wear-induced damage.

Documented Damages and Verification

Chinese drywall has been linked to distinctive patterns on metal components within affected residences, particularly manifesting as black deposits on elements. The U.S. Product Safety Commission (CPSC) documented extensive pitting and blackening on evaporator coils in multiple case studies from 2009 investigations, where coils exhibited severe enough to cause leaks and necessitate replacement. Similar degradation affected , displaying characteristic "black hourglass" patterns on conductors, and fixtures such as fittings, leading to operational failures in HVAC systems, outlets, and pipes. Verification of these damages relies on standardized inspection protocols emphasizing visual evidence of alongside contextual indicators like installation dates between 2001 and 2009. CPSC guidelines specify that homes exhibiting blackened coils or wiring, combined with from implicated periods and regions, confirm the association, with scientific analyses at national laboratories establishing a direct causal link via emissions inducing sulfide . Independent engineering assessments, including those testing emissions and morphology, report high consistency—often approaching 80-90%—between the presence of defective and observed metal failures in inspected properties, distinguishing it from typical atmospheric . Field evaluations have occasionally noted partial reductions in ongoing through enhanced ventilation measures, though such interventions do not reverse existing damage or fully halt emissions in all cases, as confirmed by post-mitigation air quality testing requirements. Overall, these inspectable outcomes provide empirical markers for affected structures, guiding remediation without reliance on indirect symptoms.

Health and Environmental Concerns

Reported Health Symptoms

Residents of homes containing defective Chinese drywall imported primarily between 2001 and 2008 have reported a range of upper respiratory and irritant symptoms, including eye irritation manifesting as burning, itching, or redness; persistent dry ; ; sinus irritation; runny or bloody noses; headaches; and skin rashes or itching. These complaints were documented in complainant surveys conducted by federal and state agencies, such as those summarized by the Product Safety Commission (CPSC), which noted over 3,000 homeowner reports linking such symptoms to occupancy in affected structures, particularly in high-humidity regions like and . Symptoms were frequently described as worsening during time spent indoors and improving upon leaving the home or during remediation, with heightened reports among children and individuals with pre-existing , including wheezing, difficulty breathing, and exacerbated respiratory infections. State health department logs from 2009 to 2010, including those from Louisiana's hotline, captured these patterns in calls from affected households, where asthmatics and young occupants noted acute flares correlating with prolonged exposure. The reported symptoms exhibit substantial overlap with those induced by common environmental irritants or allergens, such as mold, , or volatile organic compounds from standard building materials, without evidence in initial surveys of distinct disease clusters unique to the .

Empirical Assessments of Risks

Joint investigations by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) in 2009 detected emissions of (H₂S) at indoor levels averaging 5-7 parts per billion by volume (ppbv) in affected homes, alongside and , but these concentrations remained substantially below the (OSHA) permissible exposure limit of 10 parts per million (ppm, or 10,000 ppbv) for H₂S over an 8-hour period. Measurements occasionally exceeded EPA chronic reference concentrations (RfCs), such as 1.4 ppbv for H₂S, yet these guidelines represent conservative estimates for continuous lifetime exposure rather than typical residential scenarios, and the reports concluded no definitive causal link to chronic illnesses, attributing reported symptoms primarily to acute irritant effects from sulfur gases. University of Florida testing revealed that select U.S.-produced samples, particularly those incorporating additives, released sulfurous gases at levels equal to or exceeding those from Chinese imports in controlled assays, challenging claims of uniqueness to foreign sourcing and highlighting potential domestic parallels in emission profiles. Post-2010 observations in remediated properties indicated that occupant-reported symptoms, such as , frequently abated following removal and ventilation improvements, aligning with transient off-gassing mechanisms over systemic toxicity or long-term . The absence of peer-reviewed longitudinal studies demonstrating elevated incidence of chronic conditions, like persistent or neurological deficits, in exposed cohorts further weakens attributions of enduring health causation, with federal assessments emphasizing risks over substantiated toxicological threats.

Regulatory Investigations

Federal and State Inquiries

The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) launched a formal investigation into reports of and odors linked to imported in December 2008, prompted by complaints from homeowners in affected regions. By early 2009, the CPSC had established a homeowner (1-800-638-2772) for reporting incidents and begun analyzing samples in affected homes, confirming elevated emissions from certain Chinese-manufactured products. The agency collaborated with counterparts in and formed a federal interagency task force with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) to coordinate scientific testing. In October 2009, the interagency group released initial findings from laboratory analyses, including chamber emission tests by , which detected elemental uniquely in Chinese drywall samples and volatile sulfur gas emissions up to eight times higher than in U.S.-manufactured drywall. The reports identified higher levels in Chinese samples but explicitly ruled out any radiological health risk from strontium, countering unverified claims of radioactivity. and were noted at detectable levels in affected homes, potentially aggravating respiratory conditions like in sensitive individuals when ventilation was low, though no causal link to broader health epidemics was established. By May 25, 2010, CPSC testing of over 200 samples identified specific Chinese manufacturers, such as Plasterboard (Tianjin) Co. Ltd. and Taian Taishan Plasterboard Co. Ltd., whose products from 2005–2009 accounted for the top ten highest emitters—some exceeding non-Chinese by a factor of 100. These results, based on standardized emission protocols, strengthened the association between off-gassing sulfur compounds and observed metal corrosion, informing subsequent federal guidance without mandating recalls due to jurisdictional limits on foreign products. State-level inquiries in heavily impacted areas like and complemented federal efforts, with officials conducting independent testing by mid-2009 and reporting elevated sulfur content to the CPSC, while documented widespread corrosion in post-Katrina reconstructions. Senators (D-FL) and (D-LA) introduced the Drywall Safety Act in April 2009, advocating for an immediate federal import ban on exceeding specified sulfur thresholds and a recall of defective units, though enactment occurred later in 2013. These states prioritized rapid incident reporting to federal agencies, emphasizing empirical verification over anecdotal claims, amid reports of thousands of affected homes.

Remediation Standards Developed

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), in coordination with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), issued initial remediation guidance on May 10, 2010, recommending the complete removal and replacement of all identified as problematic due to elevated emissions, along with affected building components such as HVAC systems, , and fixtures showing corrosion. This protocol emphasized full-scale intervention because the 's off-gassing of and other corrosive gases persists as long as the material remains in place, necessitating source elimination to halt damage and emissions. Subsequent updates to the guidelines, released on March 18, 2011, refined the approach by requiring replacement of problem drywall, HVAC units, and devices like smoke and alarms, while mandating inspections of electrical systems but no longer insisting on wholesale wiring removal if testing confirmed . These standards incorporated containment measures, such as sealing work areas with plastic sheeting, using HEPA-filtered vacuums for dust control, and proper ventilation to prevent airborne spread of sulfur compounds and particulates during and replacement. Partial remediation strategies, including enhanced dehumidification or selective stripping without full removal, proved insufficient in addressing long-term risks, as they fail to eliminate the embedded sulfur compounds responsible for ongoing and , with recurrence observed upon re-exposure to in field applications. Federal assessments confirmed that only comprehensive removal eradicated detectable emissions and prevented further material degradation. Remediation adhering to these protocols typically incurs costs of $50,000 to $100,000 per affected residence, encompassing labor, materials, and system replacements, as estimated by builders and insurers based on verified home repairs.

Major Lawsuits and Class Actions

Lawsuits against manufacturers of defective Chinese drywall began emerging in early 2008, primarily in , where homeowners alleged that sulfur-emitting drywall imported from , produced by companies including Taishan Gypsum Co. Ltd. and entities, caused widespread corrosion of metal components and structural damage in residences built between 2001 and 2009. These initial filings targeted not only the manufacturers but also importers, distributors, builders, and developers, asserting claims under products liability theories such as , , and breach of warranty for failing to disclose the drywall's propensity to release and other corrosive gases. By June 2009, the on Multidistrict Litigation centralized over 3,000 related actions into Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) No. 2047 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, presided over by Judge Eldon E. Fallon, to streamline pretrial proceedings amid claims affecting an estimated 100,000 homes across more than 20 states. Class actions proliferated within the MDL, seeking certification for subclasses of homeowners based on geographic impact and manufacturer involvement, with plaintiffs arguing for collective relief due to the uniform defect in the drywall's production process involving excessive , , and fly ash additives. Defendants, particularly Chinese firms like Taishan, mounted vigorous defenses centered on lack of , contending that their limited U.S. contacts—primarily through third-party exporters—did not subject them to American courts, a position that prolonged litigation through appeals to the Fifth Circuit, which ultimately affirmed in 2014 based on purposeful availment via targeted sales to the U.S. market. Additional defenses invoked , sovereign immunity assertions tied to state-owned enterprises, and challenges to causation, including arguments that builder in installation or environmental factors contributed to alleged rather than inherent product defects; courts rejected blanket dismissals, requiring case-by-case evidentiary showings, such as through air quality testing and corrosion analysis. Plaintiff successes included class certifications for Taishan-related claims in 2013, enabling representation of thousands of claimants, and individual verdicts such as a award of $164,000 to a family against for verified property remediation costs, equating to approximately $81 per of affected . Critics of expansive claims, including some insurers and non-settling defendants, highlighted instances of filings in homes lacking empirical evidence, attributing such assertions to potential opportunism amid the litigation's scale, though federal rulings emphasized conservative , granting primarily on statute-of-limitations grounds only when discovery conclusively barred relief. Efforts to evade judgments, such as asset transfers by Chinese defendants, prompted auxiliary class actions to enforce compliance, underscoring jurisdictional tensions in cross-border products liability.

Settlements, Insurance, and Tax Relief

In 2011, Plasterboard (Tianjin) Co., a major Chinese manufacturer, agreed to a settlement valued at a minimum of $800 million to resolve claims from U.S. homeowners affected by its defective , covering remediation costs including full removal and replacement of wiring, appliances, and other corroded components. This agreement, finalized after multidistrict litigation, provided funds distributed through a mechanism, though actual payouts varied based on verified damages and claimant participation, with estimates reaching up to $1 billion including related contributions. A separate settlement with Taishan Gypsum Co. Ltd., another key producer, was preliminarily approved in for $248 million, aimed at compensating remaining unresolved claims from properties built between 2001 and 2009, particularly in and other Gulf states where installation was concentrated. Funds from this deal supported property inspections, partial remediation, and cash awards, but distribution faced delays due to disputes over eligibility and asset recovery from the bankrupt entity. In June 2025, Banner Supply Company, a U.S. , settled for $55 million following a verdict linking its sales to specific homeowner damages, marking one of the latest resolutions in lingering individual claims. Homeowners frequently encountered denials for Chinese drywall-related damages, as carriers invoked " exclusion" clauses in policies, classifying gas emissions as contaminants rather than covered perils. Courts, including the in 2012 and federal appeals, upheld these exclusions, ruling that from off-gassing constituted excluded environmental hazards, leaving many policyholders without first-party recovery despite premiums paid for coverage. This pattern shifted financial burdens to individual owners or public relief mechanisms, underscoring gaps in standard policy language for imported building defects. To offset unrecovered costs, the IRS has permitted casualty loss deductions for remediation under Section 165, treating qualified expenses as sudden and unusual losses eligible for itemized deductions. Guidance in Revenue Procedure 2010-42, extended through tax years up to 2025 via Publication 547 updates, allows deductions for verified removal, replacement, and related repairs, provided like testing confirms defective causation. As of October 2025, this relief remains available for ongoing claims, though it requires proving economic loss exceeding 10% of (post-2017 rules), effectively subsidizing remediation through federal tax expenditures amid limited private insurance payouts. These measures highlight how inadequate pre-import quality oversight amplified domestic fiscal strains without imposing undue regulatory penalties on manufacturers.

Controversies and Alternative Views

Radioactivity and Exaggerated Claims

In July 2009, speculation emerged that defective Chinese drywall might contain , a byproduct of production containing trace and that decays into gas, potentially elevating cancer risks in homes. This hypothesis, reported in media outlets, stemmed from Chinese manufacturing practices where is sometimes used as a filler despite bans on its interior application due to concerns. Subsequent testing coordinated by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and Florida Department of Health (FDOH) refuted these claims. Analysis of 21 samples, including both imported Chinese and domestic varieties, detected no contamination; radium-226 levels aligned with natural background , typically below 1-2 picocuries per gram, posing no discernible health hazard from . The EPA's National Air and Environmental Laboratory confirmed that detected in some samples presented no radiological risk. The CPSC's investigations emphasized that observed corrosion of metals like copper wiring and coils resulted from elevated emissions—up to 100 times higher in affected Chinese drywall samples—rather than . Media amplification of radiation fears, including unsubstantiated links to cancer, contrasted with empirical findings that emissions primarily induced irritant effects like eye and respiratory symptoms, without of systemic radioactive exposure. Critics have attributed some escalation of health complaints, such as persistent assertions of severe toxicity beyond verified irritants, to incentives in class-action litigation, where affected homeowners pursued damages for remediation and alleged injuries even after relocation failed to resolve symptoms in controlled studies. Federal probes, including those by the CPSC, found no causal linkage between drywall exposure and long-term illnesses like cancer, underscoring that initial alarms overstated risks unsupported by or epidemiological data.

Critiques of Quality Control and Import Policies

Chinese manufacturers of gypsum board imported to the United States between 2001 and 2009 employed cost-cutting strategies, incorporating industrial byproducts such as coal fly ash containing strontium sulfide to accelerate production amid surging demand from the U.S. housing boom of 2004–2008. This additive contributed to sulfur concentrations in affected drywall reaching 83–119 parts per million, far exceeding levels in U.S.-manufactured samples, prompting off-gassing of hydrogen sulfide at emission rates up to 100 times higher than non-Chinese equivalents, as measured by Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) laboratory tests. These practices stemmed from rapid scaling of output without equivalent validation of material stability, diverging from the performance benchmarks in ASTM International standard C1396, which specifies limits on impurities and durability testing for gypsum board used in construction. China's domestic standard GB/T 9775-2008 for plasterboard outlines basic composition and strength requirements but features weaker enforcement mechanisms compared to U.S. voluntary consensus standards, enabling variability in raw material sourcing—such as unpurified phosphogypsum or fly ash—that manifested defects primarily in humid environments. CPSC investigations pinpointed the issue to specific firms like Knauf Plasterboard (Tianjin) Co. Ltd. and Taishan Gypsum Co. Ltd., rather than systemic national production flaws, with some Chinese samples showing negligible emissions akin to domestic products. Empirical analyses frame these as isolated quality control lapses driven by export incentives and lax oversight, not intrinsic manufacturing incapacity, evidenced by the absence of uniform defects across all imported batches. U.S. import policies prior to 2009 exhibited oversight gaps, as the CPSC lacked statutory authority over construction materials like and relied on general U.S. Customs and Border Protection screening without targeted content or emissions testing, allowing an estimated homes to incorporate problematic shipments comprising up to 20% of regional supply in states like and . Post-scandal responses emphasized targeted fixes, including CPSC-led sampling protocols starting in 2009 and the Drywall Safety Act of 2012, which mandated foreign manufacturers to appoint U.S. agents for process service to facilitate without broad tariffs or import bans that could inflate costs. These measures addressed causal vulnerabilities in verification pragmatically, prioritizing remediation over punitive trade barriers amid ongoing domestic production capacity constraints. Critiques balance environmental concerns over persistent toxin emissions from unregulated additives—such as banned domestically for —with data indicating confined failures tied to production anomalies rather than pervasive risks, occasionally mirrored in U.S. under similar cost pressures. Proponents of stricter argue for preemptive standards , yet evidence underscores market signals from surges as the amplifier of pre-existing quality variances, advocating enhanced voluntary testing over regulatory overreach.

Recent Developments

Post-2020 Updates and Litigation

The multidistrict litigation concerning Chinese-manufactured drywall, overseen by U.S. District Judge Eldon E. Fallon in the Eastern District of Louisiana, has persisted into 2025 with docket activity as recent as October 23, addressing residual claims from affected homeowners without evidence of a surge in new cases. This contrasts with the peak filing periods prior to 2020, reflecting a gradual resolution of longstanding disputes rather than emergent widespread issues. In October 2025, a major Chinese drywall manufacturer reached a preliminary settlement resolving hundreds of remaining claims involving sulfur-contaminated products, marking one of the final stages in compensating victims for property damage and remediation. Such approvals have focused on verifying eligibility among prior registrants, with class counsel motions extending claim submission periods to facilitate payouts. No federal or state records indicate renewed class actions tied to post-2020 installations, underscoring the issue's confinement to pre-2009 imports. Tax relief for remediation expenses continues under IRS casualty loss rules, allowing deductions for personal-use property damages exceeding 10% of , with provisions extended through tax year 2025 for qualifying losses. Homeowners must substantiate claims with evidence of or off-gassing attributable to defective , aiding those pursuing final abatements without pending reimbursements. Post-2009 Consumer Product Safety Commission inquiries prompted industry shifts toward sulfur-content testing in sourcing, effectively curtailing imports of unverified foreign products through supplier vetting and domestic preferences in building practices. State-level codes, such as Florida's emphasis on specific thicknesses less common in implicated Chinese variants, have indirectly reinforced preventive measures, contributing to the absence of analogous scandals in subsequent construction booms.

Ongoing Inspections and Prevention

Home inspectors currently employ protocols that include visual examination for "" markings on backsides, detection of sulfur-like odors, and assessment of metal corrosion on evaporator coils, electrical contacts, and wiring fixtures. If initial indicators suggest presence, sampling for strontium sulfide or emissions testing for and levels is recommended, particularly in resale properties built between 2001 and 2009 in high-risk regions like the . No verified reports of new defective batches have emerged since the 2004-2008 import surge, attributable to resolved domestic shortages and subsequent diversification of supply chains toward North American manufacturers. Stricter U.S. Customs and Border Protection inspections, implemented post-crisis, screen for content in imported products, preventing recurrence. Prevention emphasizes empirical, targeted verification over widespread screening, as blanket inspections in low-risk homes can inflate costs—estimated at 500−500-2,000 per assessment—without proportional benefit, given the issue's confinement to an estimated affected structures. This approach balances caution against verified historical damages, which exceeded $100,000 per home in severe remediation cases involving full replacement and system overhauls. Industry guidance from bodies like the Consumer Product Safety Commission advocates homeowner vigilance in humid climates but discourages unsubstantiated alarm, prioritizing data-driven protocols.

References

  1. https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/Identification-Guidance-for-Homes-with-Corrosion-from-Problem-Drywall-03-18-2011.pdf
  2. https://www.vdh.virginia.gov/environmental-health/public-health-toxicology/chinese-drywall/
  3. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0048969712001878
  4. https://www.floridahealth.gov/environmental-health/drywall/drywall-timeline.html
  5. https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/pdfs/blk_pdf_drywallidi5r.pdf
  6. https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/StudyofthePossibleEffectofProblemDrywallPresenceonForeclosures.pdf
  7. https://scholarlycommons.law.emory.edu/eilr/vol26/iss1/12/
  8. https://www.9news.com/article/money/personal-finance/consumer/drywall-from-china-blamed-for-problems-in-homes/73-339082308
  9. https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/latest-katrina-disaster-tainted-chinese-drywall/
  10. https://www.npr.org/2009/10/27/114182073/toxic-chinese-drywall-creates-a-housing-disaster
  11. https://www.alabamapublichealth.gov/tox/drywall-advisories.html
  12. https://www.irmi.com/articles/expert-commentary/an-update-on-chinese-drywall-claims
  13. https://www.cpsc.gov/safety-education/safety-education-centers/drywall-information-center/where-has-problem-drywall-been-reported
  14. https://lieserskaff.com/the-problems-associated-with-chinese-drywall/
  15. https://www.cpsc.gov/Newsroom/News-Releases/2010/CPSC-Identifies-Manufacturers-of-Problem-Drywall-Made-in-China
  16. https://www.cpsc.gov/Safety-Education/Safety-Education-Centers/Drywall-Information-Center/Interagency-Drywall-Investigation
  17. https://nchh.org/information-and-evidence/learn-about-healthy-housing/ask-nchh/about-chinese-drywall/
  18. https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/pdfs/blk_media_oct2009statement.pdf
  19. https://www.heraldtribune.com/story/news/2009/05/19/epa-completes-first-testing-of-chinese-drywall/28867618007/
  20. https://www.enr.com/articles/9682-problems-continue-to-grow-with-drywall-made-in-china
  21. https://www.floridahealth.gov/ENVIRONMENTAL-HEALTH/drywall/_documents/CorrosiveDrywallWhitePaper.pdf
  22. https://www.cozen.com/admin/files/publications/chinese_drywall_background2.pdf
  23. https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/pdfs/blk_media_TabA.pdf
  24. https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/pdfs/blk_pdf_drywallidi6.pdf
  25. https://www.cpsc.gov/safety-education/safety-education-centers/drywall-information-center/how-can-i-tell-if-my-home-has-problem-drywall
  26. https://todayshomeowner.com/walls/guides/identifying-defective-chinese-drywall/
  27. https://www.floridahealth.gov/environmental-health/drywall/AssessmentAndRemediationCorrosiveDrywall.pdf
  28. https://dl.astm.org/jte/article/39/1/111/19620/X-Ray-Fluorescence-in-Corrosive-Drywall
  29. https://www.nachi.org/xrf-chinese-drywall.htm
  30. https://www.panelrey.com/Upload/Recursos/1CPSCGypsumBoard-TestResults-MEX.pdf
  31. https://www.usrecallnews.com/cpsc-7413/
  32. https://archive.cdc.gov/www_cdc_gov/media/releases/2014/a0502-ATSDR-drywall.html
  33. https://www.propublica.org/article/federal-probe-of-chinese-drywall-falls-short
  34. https://www.iii.org/article/chinese-drywall-fact-sheet
  35. https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/pdfs/blk_media_TabC.pdf
  36. https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/pdfs/blk_media_nov2009statement.pdf
  37. https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/pdfs/blk_media_NISTgas.pdf
  38. https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/pdfs/blk_media_51homeStudy.pdf
  39. https://pdhonline.com/courses/c748/c748content.pdf
  40. https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/pdfs/blk_pdf_drywallidi2.pdf
  41. https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/pdfs/blk_pdf_drywallidi4.pdf
  42. https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/pdfs/blk_media_interimidguidance012810.pdf
  43. https://ldh.la.gov/assets/oph/Center-EH/envepi/LDHH_Factsheet_Chinese_Drywall_7-24-09.pdf
  44. http://www.myfloridalegal.com/consumer-protection/how-to-protect-yourself-chinese-drywall
  45. https://www.news-press.com/story/news/2014/05/02/update-from-cdc-saying-chinese-drywall-may-harm-health/8615023/
  46. https://www.firstcoastnews.com/article/news/regional/florida/cdc-reports-on-chinese-drywall-tests/77-271070810
  47. https://ldh.la.gov/page/imported-drywall-conditions-associated-with-the-problem
  48. https://www.childrenshospital.org/programs/pediatric-environmental-health-center/patient-resources/health-effects-chinese-drywall
  49. https://www.beankinney.com/drywall-claims-new-testing-data-and-is-us-drywall-a-problem-too/
  50. https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/chinese-drywall-problems-health-effects-32402.html
  51. https://digitaleditions.walsworth.com/article/Lessons%2Bfrom%2Bthe%2BChinese-Manufactured%2BDrywall%2BMDL%2BLitigation%253A%2BMeasuring%2BPost-Remediation%2BStigma%2Bin%2BConstruction-Defect%2Band%2BEnvironmental%2BContamination%2BClass%2BActions/3690668/662795/article.html
  52. https://www.claimsjournal.com/news/national/2009/04/10/99529.htm
  53. https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=271e3d36-d9fa-42d8-819d-8a7cadbc47e2
  54. https://www.aheadofschedulelaw.com/2010/04/articles/construction/claims-disputes/construction-defects/cpsc-recommends-removal-and-replacement-of-chinese-drywall/
  55. https://www.warner.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2011/3/new-remediation-guidelines-for-chinese-drywall
  56. https://www.nola.com/news/business/chinese-drywall-remediation-guidelines-revised-by-u-s-consumer-product-safety-commission/article_c9740c01-2e68-5e5a-be9c-6d5123d28413.html
  57. https://www.homeinnovation.com/documents/Insights/Reports/2011/NAHB-imported-problematic-drywall-2011.pdf
  58. https://www.aboutlawsuits.com/chinese-drywall-3224/
  59. https://www.enr.com/articles/9701-cost-of-chinese-drywall-remediation-could-run-into-billions-of-dollars
  60. https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca5/12-31213/12-31213-2014-05-20.html
  61. https://www.laed.uscourts.gov/case-information/mdl-mass-class-action/drywall
  62. https://opencasebook.org/casebooks/4444/resources/12.8/
  63. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-laed-2_09-md-02047/pdf/USCOURTS-laed-2_09-md-02047-92.pdf
  64. https://www.normi.org/news/chinese-drywall-litigation/
  65. https://lfsblaw.com/news/class-action-lawsuit-aims-to-stop-chinese-government-owned-companies-from-fleeing-adverse-legal-judgments/
  66. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2011-12-15/chinese-drywall-maker-knauf-plasterboard-agrees-to-800-million-settlement
  67. https://www.seegerweiss.com/product-liability/toxic-drywall/
  68. https://lfsblaw.com/news/taishansettlement/
  69. https://www.theconstructionindex.co.uk/news/view/supplier-reaches-55m-settlement-over-chinese-drywall
  70. https://www.irmi.com/articles/expert-commentary/cgl-absolute-pollution-exclusion-barred-coverage-for-chinese-drywall-damages
  71. https://www.wiley.law/pressrelease-647
  72. https://www.irs.gov/publications/p547
  73. https://www.aboutlawsuits.com/chinese-drywall-relief-provided-by-irs-4930/
  74. https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article24545413.html
  75. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2009-jul-04-fi-drywall4-story.html
  76. https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/pdfs/blk_media_tefinal.pdf
  77. https://www.floridahealth.gov/environmental-health/drywall/drywall-timeline.html?movies
  78. https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/pdfs/blk_media_aug2009status.pdf
  79. https://www.enr.com/articles/2522-chinese-drywall-probe-finds-no-link-yet-to-health-problems
  80. https://www.nachi.org/chinese-drywall.htm
  81. https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna30169267
  82. https://www.americangypsum.com/resource-center/literature/corrosive-chinese-wallboard-concerns-and-information
  83. https://scholarlycommons.law.emory.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1056&context=eilr
  84. https://www.wshblaw.com/assets/htmldocuments/uploads/2011/10/Chinese-Drywall-A-New-Legal-Problem-For-Americas-Builders.pdf
  85. https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/pdfs/blk_media_nov2009status.pdf
  86. https://www.crowell.com/en/insights/client-alerts/president-signs-chinese-drywall-legislation
  87. https://www.propublica.org/article/american-made-drywall-emerges-as-potential-danger
  88. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4510502/in-re-chinese-manufactured-drywall-products-liability-litigation/
  89. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4510502/in-re-chinese-manufactured-drywall-products-liability-litigation/?entry_gte=16852&page=1
  90. https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p547.pdf
  91. https://www.irs.gov/instructions/i4684
  92. https://suncoastinspections.com/chinesedrywall.htm
  93. https://solidrockhi.com/uncovering-chinese-drywall-a-crucial-step-in-home-inspections/
  94. https://www.wshblaw.com/experience-chinese-drywall-a-new-legal-problem-for-americas-builders
  95. https://todayshomeowner.com/walls/guides/toxic-chinese-drywall-is-it-in-your-home/
  96. https://www.heraldtribune.com/story/news/2013/08/26/bad-drywall-still-an-issue-for-investors/29195388007/
  97. https://www.cpsc.gov/Safety-Education/Safety-Education-Centers/Drywall-Information-Center
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.