PaintSquare.com


The First Word in Protective & Marine Coatings

A Product of Technology Publishing / PaintSquare
JPCL | PaintSquare News | Durability + Design | Paint BidTracker

Marine Industry Coating Systems: Selecting and Sourcing

Paint and Coatings Industry News

Main News Page


Coating Allegedly Ruined $40M Deal

Tuesday, February 19, 2013

More items for Coating Materials

Comment | More

Shipping container manufacturer Sea Box Inc. has filed suit against the Valspar Corp., accusing the coating maker of supplying defective paint for a $40 million container coating project for the U.S. Air Force.

In a seven-count federal-court lawsuit filed Feb. 12 in New Jersey, Sea Box alleges that shortly after coating about 5,000 containers for the Air Force with Valspar's Aquaguard, the coating began blistering and peeling on the container exteriors.

Within two years, Sea Box contends, the interiors also showed defects.

The complaint seeks a jury trial for compensatory damages, equitable relief, punitive damages, counsel fees and costs. The action was filed with the U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey, Camden Vicinage. Sea Box is headquartered in East Riverton, NJ.

Minneapolis-based Valspar did not respond Monday (Feb. 18) to a request for comment on the litigation. The company is the world's sixth-largest paint and coating manufacturer.

Sea Box Inc.

After coating about 5,000 containers with Aquaguard, Sea Box said, the exterior coatings failed quickly, with interior problems two years later. (Note: Photo does not show the containers that are the subject of litigation.)

Coating Contract

According to the complaint, Valspar had provided oil-based paint to Sea Box before 2008 for use on containers. In October 2008, Valspar recommended that Sea Box use Aquaguard, a waterborne coating.

Knowing that Sea Box intended to bid on a major contract with the U.S. Air Force to supply coated containers, Valspar supplied Sea Box with an Oct. 20, 2008, testing report by an independent lab "demonstrating that Aquaguard was very suitable for the purpose," the complaint says. (The lab is not a defendant in the complaint.)

After negotiating a price for the coating with Valspar, Sea Box entered into a $40 million contract with the U.S. Air Force to supply at least 5,000 containers coated with Aquaguard.

The coating was applied to the containers in Hong Kong by the installer, and the containers were then shipped to Holloman Air Force Base in New Mexico and four other countries outside the U.S.

Blistering and Peeling

In May 2009, the suit says, the Air Force notified Sea Box that the exterior roofs on some containers were blistering and peeling at the Holloman Air Force Base and demanded that containers from all five locations have their exterior roofs recoated. Sea Box contends that the repairs cost approximately $3 million.

Sea Box said it informed Valspar of the roof problems that it believed stemmed from the Aquaguard coating and sought compensation from the coating supplier.

Valspar claimed that the coating was not the problem, but rather the method used to apply it, the suit says.

New Coating & Agreement

Nevertheless, the suit says, Valspar agreed to provide up to 4,500 gallons of new, reformulated coating to repair the exterior roofs at no extra charge and to pay Sea Box $200,000 as part of a new manufacturing agreement.

That Aug. 4, 2010, agreement also required Sea Box to "release any claims pertaining to the exterior peeling" and to purchase all of its coatings from Valspar for a five-year period, with "quarterly rebates based upon the amount of coatings purchased."

"It now appears that Valspar was aware that the Aquaguard product was defective and that it would continue to fail, and fraudulently induced Sea Box to enter into the Manufacturing Agreement," the suit says.

At the time that Sea Box entered into that agreement with Valspar, the coating problems were limited to the exteriors of the containers, the suit says.

However, about two years later, in April 2012, the Air Force notified Sea Box for the first time that the containers' interior coating was also peeling and demanded that Sea Box recoat all of the interiors as well.

Valspar Aquaguard
Valspar

Valspar calls its waterborne, zinc-free Aquaguard container coating a "cost-effective, sustainable solution" that has been successfully used in many markets.

At that point, the suit says, Sea Box sought compensation from Valspar for the interior repair costs, "but Valspar denied that it was liable to Sea Box."

Sea Box now alleges that Valspar knew that Aquaguard was defective and would continue to fail and that the supplier fraudulently induced Sea Box to enter into the agreement.

Counts Allege Fraud, Negligence

The seven-count complaint alleges:

  • Breach of contract in supplying the Aquaguard coating, "which blistered when containers were stored outside";
  • Breach of implied warranty of merchantability in implying that Aquaguard "was merchantable, suitable for use and non-defective" when it was "defective and not merchantable";
  • Breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, alleging that Valspar knew what the product would be used for and implied that the product was fit for that use;
  • Negligence in failing to exercise reasonable care in recommending and supplying the Aquaguard coating for the contract;
  • Violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act through "unconscionable commercial practices, deception, fraud, false pretenses, false promises and misrepresentations in connection with its promotion and sale of its Aquaguard product to Sea Box, resulting in an initial failure of the product very soon after its application";
  • Breach of contractual warranty, alleging that the Aug. 4, 2010, agreement was "induced by fraud" and thus not valid or, if valid, did not pertain to the interior coatings; and
  • Fraud in obtaining the August 2010 agreement when "Valspar was aware that the Aquaguard coating was defective, and that these defects caused the exterior peeling and would likely continue to cause problems."

Valspar's offer to replace the coating at no charge is evidence that the supplier knew the product was defective, the suit says.

About Aquaguard

On its website, Valspar Container describes  Aquaguard as a waterborne, zinc-free coating for shipping containers that "enables supply chains to be more sustainable."

Valspar says the coating reduces energy use and emissions during the container manufacturing process; reduces repairs during the life of the container; and eliminates the potential leaching of zinc and other heavy metals into local water supplies during container storage and transit.

Valspar says Aquaguard "outperforms standard solvent-based coatings in corrosion performance."

"On containers coated with Valspar Aquaguard, the onset of corrosion from container damage is reduced at least 60 percent compared to zinc-based coatings," based on 710-hour salt spray test results, the company says.

   

Tagged categories: Blistering; Coating failure; Contracts; Laboratory testing; Lawsuits; Peeling; Steel; Valspar

Comment from Billy Russell, (2/19/2013, 6:54 AM)

I first want to thank the UNITED STATES AIR FORCE a 40 million dollar container coating contract, done in Hong Kong ! (That is failing) on behalf of the Tax payers I want to thank our Air force for slapping us in the face. I am sure that valspar will show application problems and this will be a long drawn out case how ever there are numerous companies here in the USA, but since we are footing the Bill for this how about giving a tax paying company in our own country a shot next time,Sad that this is going on in our nation. My name is Billy Russell and I approve this message.


Comment from William Cornelius, (2/19/2013, 8:15 AM)

I thought it especially interesting that the painting for the USAF was done in Hong Kong, a part of the PRC for the last 16 years.


Comment from William Cornelius, (2/19/2013, 8:17 AM)

Sorry, Billy Russell. I didn't see your comment before I posted mine. I heartily apporove your message.


Comment from Mike McCloud, (2/19/2013, 10:05 AM)

$8,000.00 per container, is that just the coating? Somebody got a bonus!


Comment from peter gibson, (2/19/2013, 11:07 AM)

Billy Russell I also approve of your message.


Comment from Gordon Kuljian, (2/19/2013, 11:28 AM)

......and you just got to wonder if there was any coating inspection oversight of the job in Hong Kong.


Comment from Paul Bradley, (2/20/2013, 9:22 AM)

Did I read that the claim about excellent corrosion resistance was 710 hours of hot salt spray! That's it!! The marine and protective coatings industry laugh at hot salt spray as a long term performance indicator and even if they didn't - performing just 710 hours (1 month) for a coating that's going to have a lifetime of several years in a harsh marine environment seems too little !! The architectural aluminum industry (AAMA) asks us to perform 3000 hours of HSS - and that's just for window frames and siding!!


Comment from Stephen Dobrosielski, (2/20/2013, 9:49 AM)

Things that make you go "Hmmm?" October, 2008 ... Valspar recommends use of the coating material based on a independent recommendation dated October 20, 2008. October, 2008 ... USAF enters into an agreement with SeaBox to provide the containers with the coating in question. Pretty fast for the military (even the USAF) ... Hmmm. May, 2009 ... USAF advises SeaBox that containers in New Mexico have blisters on the roof. So in 6 months, the agreement was signed and containers were manufactured, coated, shipped half of the way around the world (how were they shipped?) and the roof (not sides?) developed blisters. Hmmmm. April, 2012, the USAF advises of interior coating peeling ... this coating lasted about three and a half years, unexposed to sunlight, hopefully unexposed to moisture/immersion. Hmmm. Always looking for more answers. Inquiring minds want to know.


Comment from Rick Leber, (2/20/2013, 10:13 AM)

I wonder about the coating inspection especially in Hong Kong, and I too heartily endorse Billy Russell`s message.


Comment from Jim Johnson, (2/20/2013, 11:50 AM)

Billy Russell, I too heartily endorse your message! The article doesn't provide any details but from the description it sounds like surface contamination was at least part of the problem.


Comment from Jim Johnson, (2/20/2013, 11:59 AM)

Perhaps Paintsquare would be good enough to bundle up these messages and forward them to both the House and Senate committees that oversee military funding.


Comment from walt taylor, (2/21/2013, 9:21 AM)

billy russell is dead on with his comment, what the hell an air force contract doing in hong kong, when there are many, many outfits rg here. there are no inspections there,no codes, etc. i wonder if the sheetrock came from the same company????


Comment from Mike Jezdimir , (2/21/2013, 9:53 AM)

Makes you wonder Walt!! Paul, you are absolutely correct about the material testing, it's quite obvious that the coatings manufacturer was more interested in their bottom line/end of the year bonus, than providing a product which has the documented case histories of successful coatings longevity in harsh environments. As an industrial contractor, I find it rather odd that Sea Box would stray away from a material which has proven to be successful for them. I personally don't agree with the utilization of either product (oil based or the Aquaguard) on a substrate that will endure the elements for years to come, especially when there are much better products out there that are proven and documented.


Comment from Chuck Pease, (12/30/2013, 11:11 PM)

Wow!!! Grandpa always saaid I would someday understand why he always said to hell in a hand basket. Bravo Billy . Message approved. Love your idea Jim. Too bad the gesture would just get a wry smile and a chuckle from Uncle Sam.Do we really think anyione cares on Capital Hill.


Comment Join the Conversation:

Sign in to our community to add your comments.

International Paint LLC

International Paint Engineered Coatings

Learn about our solutions for:
  • Structural Steel
  • Piping & Equipment
  • Storage Tanks
  • Pressure Vessels
  • Secondary Containment


    Mitsubishi Gas Chemical America
    Performance Amine 1,3-BAC

    A highly reactive cycloaliphatic diamine offering superior performance. Reasonable cost and curing efficacy makes it suitable for all types of epoxy resin applications.


    Wasser High-Tech Coatings Inc.
    Wasser Coatings Protect

    some of the most important bridges in the country; learn about our NEPCOAT-approved system and our entire range of MCU & Polyurea coatings. 1-800-627-2968 www.wassercoatings.com


    Polyval Coatings
    Polyflex® Polyurea Linings

    exhibit outstanding versatility in use; providing abrasion resistance, superior seamless waterproofing and high-chem corrosion protection. www.polyflexlinings.com


    Sherwin-Williams
    Sherwin Williams

    • Improved Corrosion
      Resistance
    • Enhanced Durability
    • Faster Shop Throughput


    Keizer Technologies, Inc.
    Fast • Safe • Clean • Silent

    The innovative RPR Induction Disbonder, the world’s fastest, safest, cleanest and very cost effective method for removing paint and coatings from steel surfaces.


    BASF
    New resins from BASF will have metals loving water:

    Excellent corrosion resistance, low VOC, high gloss, thin films basf.us/industrialcoatings
    polyorders@basf.com
    800-231-7868

  •  
     
     
    Technology Publishing

    The Technology Publishing Network

    The Journal of Protective Coatings & Linings (JPCL) PaintSquare
    Durability + Design Paint BidTracker JPCL Europe

     
    EXPLORE:      JPCL   |   PaintSquare News   |   Interact   |   Buying Guides   |   Webinars   |   Resources   |   Classifieds
    REGISTER AND SUBSCRIBE:      Free PaintSquare Registration   |   Subscribe to JPCL   |   Subscribe to PaintSquare News
    MORE:      About PaintSquare.com   |   Privacy policy   |   Terms & conditions   |   Site Map   |   Search   |   Contact Us
     

    © Copyright 2000-2014, Technology Publishing / PaintSquare, All rights reserved
    2100 Wharton Street, Suite 310, Pittsburgh PA 15203-1951; Tel 1-412-431-8300; Fax 1-412-431-5428; E-mail webmaster@paintsquare.com