28.  Weyerhaeuser’s TJI Joists with Flak Jacket Protection are part of its Trus Joist floor  system, which, according to Weyerhaeuser, is a result of “[m]ore than 50 years of wood research  and technology.” Weyerhaeuser has represented that “a survey of builders” determined that “TJI  joists were the number one brand in quality, familiarity and usage.”   29.  Flak Jacket is a Weyerhaeuser “proprietary, factory-applied coating” that  purportedly “enhances the joist’s fire resistance.”   31.  Since at least December 1, 2016, Weyerhaeuser has coated the Joists with a Flak  Jacket coating that includes a formaldehyde-based resin.   32.  Weyerhaeuser has sold or distributed the Joists throughout Colorado and the United  States for installation in homes and other structures, including homes that reside families, senior  citizens and children.   33.  Marketing materials obtained from Weyerhaeuser’s own website represent that its  Joists “offer the high-performance flooring [consumers] rely on with the fire-resistance that new  regulations require,” “do[] not require special handling,” and are “backed by Weyerhaeuser  support.”   34.  Weyerhaeuser’s sales brochures and marketing literature, that were widely  distributed to building professionals who installed the Joists, and that were available to Plaintiffs  and the Class at the time of sale, similarly tout the superior characteristics of the Joists.   35.  Plaintiffs and the Class, and their builders, relied on Weyerhaeuser’s  representations and advertising concerning the Joists when they purchased the Joists.   36.  Weyerhaeuser widely advertises that its Joists carry a lifetime warranty. Building  professionals and consumers appropriately and reasonably interpret Weyerhaeuser’s warranty and  representations to mean that the product should not need to be replaced during the lifetime of a  home or other structure in which the Joists are installed.   38.  Given that the Joists need to be immediately repaired, removed and/or replaced, the  Joists have not lived up to Weyerhaeuser’s representations and warranties.  II.  Weyerhaeuser’s Joists Are Defective   39.  Because of a defect in the design, formulation, and manufacture of the Joists, the  Joists emit excessive levels of noxious and toxic gases. These dangerous gases render the homes  and other structures in which the Joists are installed uninhabitable, and pose a serious safety risk  to those who enter these home and other structures.   40.  These defects have manifested themselves uniformly in the Joists installed in the  homes and other structures of Plaintiffs and the Class.   41.  At present, there are thousands of Class members, including Plaintiffs, whose  homes and other structures incorporate Weyerhaeuser’s defective Joists and who have observed or  otherwise experienced the uniform defects described herein.   42.  Some of the homes and structures at issue have already been subject to testing by  builders and customers, that evidences the defect with the Joists, as described herein.   43.  As a direct result of the readily observable and uniform defects inherent in the  Joists, Weyerhaeuser has halted all production, sales and shipments of the Joists and now refers to  the Joists as “temporarily discontinued.”  55.  This action has been brought and may be properly maintained as a nationwide class  action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, on behalf of the following class:   All persons and entities who own or who have signed contracts to  purchase homes or other structures located in the United States in  which Weyerhaeuser TJI Joists with Flak Jacket Protection are or  were installed (the “Class”). Excluded from the Class is Defendant  and Defendant’s legal representatives, assigns and successors.   56.  This action has also been brought and may be properly maintained as a Colorado  class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 on behalf of the Colorado Class defined as follows:  All persons and entities who own or who have signed contracts  to purchase homes or other structures located in the State of  Colorado in which Weyerhaeuser TJI Joists with Flak Jacket  Protection are or were installed (the “Colorado Class”). Excluded  from  the  Class  is  Defendant  and  Defendant’s  legal  representatives, assigns and successors.   57.  The Class and Colorado Class are collectively referred to below as the “Classes.”  Plaintiffs reserve the right to redefine the Classes prior to class certification.   60.  Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the members of the Classes. As a result  of the uniform defects inherent in the Joists’ formulation, the defective Joists have caused Plaintiffs  and all members of the Classes to suffer damages.   62.  Plaintiffs and the members of the Classes have all suffered and will continue to  suffer harm and damages as a result of Weyerhaeuser’s conduct as described herein. A class action  is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy.  Absent a class action, the vast majority of Class members likely would not be in a position to  litigate their claims individually and would have no effective remedy at law through which to  vindicate their claims against Weyerhaeuser and be made whole. Class treatment of predominating  common questions of law and fact is also superior to multiple individual actions, in that class  treatment would conserve the resources of the courts and the litigants, and will further the efficient  adjudication of Class members’ claims.  63.  Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each preceding and succeeding paragraph as  though fully set forth herein.   64.  Weyerhaeuser marketed and sold its Joists into the stream of commerce with the  intent that the Joists would be purchased by contractors, subcontractors and end-users for  installation in homes and other structures owned and purchased by Plaintiffs and the Classes.   65.  Prior to filing this lawsuit, Plaintiffs provided written notice to Weyerhaeuser of  the breach of warranty.    67.  Pursuant to Weyerhaeuser’s express warranty, Weyerhaeuser is to pay costs for  repair or replacement of the defective Joists. In exchange for these duties and obligations,  Weyerhaeuser received payment of the purchase price for the Joists from Plaintiffs and the Classes.    68.  Weyerhaeuser created additional express warranties for the Joists through its sales  brochures, catalogs, website and marketing materials. These warranties have full force and effect,  notwithstanding any limitations in the “limited warranties” from Weyerhaeuser.   69.  Weyerhaeuser made the express warranties to the ultimate consumers, including  Plaintiffs and the Classes.   70.  The limitations and exclusions in Weyerhaeuser’s warranties are unconscionable  and unenforceable.   71.  The consequential or incidental losses sustained by Plaintiffs and the Classes are  within the contemplation of the parties, and therefore should not be prohibited when such  bargained for remedy fails of its essential purpose.   72.  Weyerhaeuser’s purported “limited warranty” fails of its essential purpose in that  it limits recovery to a multiple of the purchase price of the Joists themselves when adequate repair,  replacement and/or removal of the Joists will cost far in excess of the limited amount.   73.  Because Weyerhaeuser’s warranty fails in its essential purpose, Plaintiffs and the  Classes are entitled to recover available damages.   75.  Weyerhaeuser failed to perform as required under its purported warranties and  breached said contracts and agreements by providing Plaintiffs and the Classes with Joists that  were defective and unfit for their intended use and did not perform as promised, and failed to  appropriately replace the Joists or otherwise provide relief.   76.  The Joists fall well short of the lifetime guarantee as their defective nature is evident  immediately upon installation of the Joists or occupation of the structure.   77.  Weyerhaeuser breached its express warranties to Plaintiffs and the Classes by  designing, manufacturing, marketing and selling Joists that were defective and not fit for their  intended use as durable and long-term home building products. As detailed herein, the Joists did  not perform as expressly promised and were fraught with uniform defects.   78.  Weyerhaeuser knew that its Joists were defective, yet continued to represent that  they were free of defects. Plaintiffs and members of the Classes had no ability to detect the defect  nor received notice thereof, and did not receive notice on a timely basis. Based on facts within its  control, Weyerhaeuser knew or should have known of the defective nature of the Joists long before  its July 18, 2017 press release.   79.  Plaintiffs and the Classes have relied on Weyerhaeuser’s express warranties to their  detriment.   81.  Weyerhaeuser is on actual notice of its breaches, as Weyerhaeuser noted in its own  press release that the Joists are defective. In addition, builders and consumers across the United  States have put Weyerhaeuser on notice of its breaches. Furthermore, Plaintiffs provided notice to  Weyerhaeuser of its breaches prior to filing this lawsuit.   82.  As a result of Weyerhaeuser’s breach of its express warranties, Plaintiffs and the  Classes have suffered actual damages, in that they have purchased and installed in their homes and  other structures Joists that are defective and not at all suitable for their intended purpose. These  defects have caused and will continue to cause Plaintiffs and the Classes to expend substantial  resources repairing and/or replacing their Joists and to address any collateral damages to their  underlying homes and structures proximately caused by the defective Joists.    83.  Plaintiffs and the Classes reserve their right to seek all damages available by statute  or law.   84.  Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each preceding and succeeding paragraph as  though fully set forth herein.   85.  Weyerhaeuser designed, manufactured, and sold the Joists knowing that they would  be used in constructing consumers’ homes.    86.  Weyerhaeuser was a merchant of the Joists and marketed, promoted, and sold the  Joists to the consuming public.   88.  Weyerhaeuser warranted to the Plaintiffs that the Joists were of a quality that would  pass without objection in the trade and were at least fit for the ordinary purposes for which such  goods were used, and in all other respects were of merchantable quality.   89.  Plaintiffs relied on that warranty.   90.  Weyerhaeuser breached its implied warranty of merchantability because the Joists  were not of merchantable quality and were unfit for the ordinary purposes for which they were  designed and were used.   91.  Prior to filing suit, Plaintiffs notified Weyerhaeuser of the defective nature of its  Joists and of its breach of the implied warranty of merchantability within a reasonable time of its  discovery.   92.  Given the significance of the Joists to the structure of Plaintiffs’ home and the  homes of Class members – supporting the floors – any limitation of remedies claimed by  Weyerhaeuser must fail of its essential purpose in that significant damage to property will occur  and the replacement of the Joists cannot be accomplished without considerable consequential cost  and expense.   93.  As a result of Weyerhaeuser’s breach of its implied warranties, Plaintiffs and the  Classes have suffered actual damages, in that they have purchased and installed in their homes and  other structures joists that are defective and not at all suitable for their intended purpose. These  defects have caused and will continue to cause Plaintiffs and the Classes to expend substantial  resources repairing, removing and/or replacing their Joists and addressing any collateral damages  to their underlying homes and structures proximately caused by the defective Joists.   95.  Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each preceding and succeeding paragraph as  though fully set forth herein.   96.  Defendant sold and impliedly warranted the Joists to be fit for the purpose of  constructing a home to serve as a residence.    97.  The Joists were not suitable for the purpose because they emitted noxious and toxic  gases into Plaintiffs and Class members' homes.    98.  Plaintiffs home used the product in the manner in which it was intended to be used,  namely as a floor joist.  This use was reasonably expected by and foreseeable to Defendant.    BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY   BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF   FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE   BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY   I.  Weyerhaeuser Misrepresented The Joists’ Characteristics And Breached Its  Warranties To The Class  