Fishkin Lucks scored a complete victory today in a construction defect case brought in the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Montgomery County, when plaintiffs withdrew their opposition to the Firm’s motion for summary judgment filed on behalf of its client, a leading manufacturer of flexible exterior wall systems. Plaintiffs brought claims against more than a dozen parties, alleging property damage and personal injuries due to water infiltration at their home. Plaintiffs attributed the water infiltration, in part, to defects in a stucco system allegedly manufactured and supplied by the Firm’s client. Following the completion of discovery, the Firm argued that the record evidence was insufficient to establish that our client’s stucco system had been installed on plaintiffs’ home or was a proximate cause of plaintiffs’ alleged damages and that, in any event, summary judgment was also appropriate solely on account of plaintiffs’ intentional spoliation of critical evidence. Plaintiffs withdrew their opposition to the motion after they received the Firm’s reply papers in further support of the motion, in which the Firm demonstrated that their opposition was based on misrepresentations, unsupported arguments and baseless allegations, and completely failed to challenge the substantial prejudice our client sustained due to plaintiffs’ spoliation of evidence, which prejudice we carefully detailed for the Court through expert testimony presented in the Firm’s moving papers. Following the withdrawal, the Court awarded our client summary judgment not only against plaintiffs’ claims, but against each co-defendant’s cross-claims.