NIBCO settlement payout varies for building owners harmed by defective PEX tubing

The NIBCO settlement payout varies for building owners harmed by defective PEX tubing settlement to eligible claimants who owned or currently own a commercial or residential building containing nibco pex tubing, fittings, or clamps. The filing deadline has not yet been announced. Proof of purchase is required.
Deadline: No deadline specified
Total amount allocated for all claims
Estimated amount per eligible claim
Claimants must document ownership or prior ownership of a building that contained NIBCO PEX tubing, fittings, or clamps after January 1, 2005. Typical supporting evidence includes property ownership records, photos showing the products, installation or repair invoices, receipts, and any related service or damage records; claims must also meet any stated filing deadlines.
Settlement Summary
This class action revolves around allegations that NIBCO’s PEX tubing, fittings, and clamps — if installed in a building owned or formerly owned by you anytime after January 1, 2005 — were defective and caused leaks, water damage and repair costs. Plaintiffs say the products failed prematurely or were improperly manufactured or specified, prompting property owners to seek compensation; the settlement website notes payouts vary, proof of ownership/repair is required, and claim deadlines differ by claimant. The lawsuit matters because it offers a route for many affected commercial and residential owners to recover remediation expenses and to hold a major plumbing supplier financially accountable without individual trials. Beyond this specific settlement, the case sits within broader litigation and regulatory scrutiny of PEX plumbing systems that emerged as PEX became a common alternative to copper. Building codes and industry standards (for example, ASTM specifications, ICC evaluation, and NSF/ANSI certifications) set performance and safety expectations for piping, and failures can prompt recalls, changes to installation guidance, and tighter certification enforcement. Similar suits against other manufacturers have produced settlements or prompted warranty changes, and this type of litigation can influence insurer claims, contractor practices, and future product testing and labeling across the plumbing industry.
Entities Involved
Related Topics
Eligibility Requirements
- Owned or currently own a commercial or residential building containing NIBCO PEX tubing, fittings, or clamps
- The NIBCO products were present in the property anytime after January 1, 2005
- Submit a claim by the applicable deadline (deadlines vary)
- Provide required documentation to support the claim (proof required)
Featured Investigations
Stay Updated
Subscribe to our newsletter for the latest settlement updates and news.
Important Notice About Filing Claims
Submitting false information in a settlement claim is considered perjury and will result in your claim being rejected. Fraudulent claims harm legitimate class members and may result in legal consequences.
If you are unsure about your eligibility for this settlement, please visit the official settlement administrator’s website using the link provided above. Review the eligibility criteria carefully before submitting a claim.
Class Action Champion is an independent information resource and is not affiliated with any settlement administrator, law firm, or court. We provide settlement information as a service to help connect eligible class members with legitimate settlements.
Related Settlements
Absolute Dental Group $3.3 Million Settlement for 2025 Data Breach Losses
Absolute Dental Group LLC agreed to pay a $3.3 million class action settlement over a potential 2025 data breach affecting consumers’ personal information. The incident occurred between Feb. 19, 2025 and March 5, 2025, when unauthorized access may have exposed data. Eligible U.S. residents who received notice from Absolute Dental about the incident may claim up to $5,000 for documented losses and may also receive a pro rata cash payment, with certain California residents eligible for an enhanced amount.
Travelers PIP Settlement for New Jersey Claims Up to 70 or More for Deductible Reductions
A class action settlement totaling at least the net settlement fund (with attorneys’ fees up to $275,000 and service awards of $7,500) resolves allegations that Travelers and St. Paul improperly reduced New Jersey PIP coverage limits by counting deductibles and copayments, causing some insureds to receive less than the PIP benefits available. Eligible policyholders (and certain heirs/representatives) who received final PIP payments between April 14, 2017 and April 1, 2023 that were within $3,000 of their policy limit—but not the full limit—may receive an automatic $70 and possibly additional compensation.
MUBI $1.6 Million Settlement for California Auto-Renewal Without Notice
California subscribers of the MUBI streaming service may be eligible for a $1.6 million class action settlement over alleged auto-renewal charges without adequate notice or proper consent. The claims cover sign-ups beginning April 1, 2021 and auto-renewals occurring through May 31, 2025, as described in Cesar Cejudo v. MUBI, Inc. To be eligible, claimants must have been California residents whose subscription renewed at least once and who did not receive a full refund of renewal charges.
MetLife $1.2 Million Settlement for Underinsured Motorist Coverage Offsets in New Mexico
Metropolitan Direct Property and Casualty Insurance Co. (MetLife) agreed to pay $1.2 million to settle claims that it misrepresented or failed to disclose underinsured motorist (UM/UIM) coverage limits and used improper offsets. The issue relates to New Mexico auto insurance activity between Oct. 1, 2010, and Jan. 31, 2022. Eligible class members include qualifying policyholders who had UM/UIM claim offsets by at-fault payments or who purchased UM/UIM coverage in that period.
