I took the photo above when submitting the claim for this tub to the factory.
It was not considered a warranty issue for the following reasons:
1. The cabinet panels were only warped and blistered on one side of the tub. The other three sides of the cabinet were normal. Had there been a defect in material it's reasonable to conclude other panels from the same lot of raw materials would also display the same damage.
2. The spa cover is also only blistered on the same side of the tub. The spa cover is made from an entirely different material and comes from an entirely different supplier. The flap on the spa cover is a continuous strip of material approximately 16 feet long. Only one side is blistered. It's reasonable to conclude if the material were defective the entire flap would be blistered.
3. The damage was determined to be from some external source because:
a. Two entirely different materials (marine grade vinyl and plastic panels) from entirely different vendors showed signs of blistering as if exposed to an intense heat source. Look closely at the photo and draw your own conclusions.
b. The damage appeared only on one side of the tub. If the materials were somehow defective other parts of the spa cover and other parts of the cabinet would show signs.
c. Any defect in material would also have shown up on dozens or hundreds of other tubs built around the same time. No such defects have been reported.
d. A hot water/steam pressure washer could easily cause the type of damage evident on the tub. The damage is more pronounced in the center of the tub and feathered out on the sides with a clear pattern across the individual slats of the panel. The pattern could easily be produced by a hot water/steam pressure washer wand being swept back and forth across the surface. The panel is clearly less damaged where the steps would have blocked and protected the plastic.
The tub owner was given the opportunity (in writing) to submit a sample of the panel to the factory for testing by the vendor to determine if there was a material defect.
The tub owner never submitted a sample.
The tub owner was offered the opportunity to purchase the replacement panels at wholesale pricing but refused.
The tub owner was notified (in writing with photos) that the tub was not wired to code because it lacked a GFCI breaker as required by national and state electrical codes. It also lacked a maintenance disconnect visible and accessible from the tub and was connected with undersized wiring.
While the electrical code violations could have easily been cited as reasons for voiding the warranty entirely the factory worked as much as possible to meet in the middle and reach an agreeable solution.
The tub owner refused every effort for a reasonable compromise.
