The Okna Windows lawsuit history includes three notable matters: a 2011 class action settlement in New Jersey federal court over a dealer’s false marketing of the company’s ComfortWeld line, a breach of contract suit Okna itself filed and lost against Diversified Structural Composites in 2019, and a 2025 Family and Medical Leave Act case brought by a former employee that was dismissed with prejudice in early 2026.
The 2011 ComfortWeld Class Action Settlement
The best-known case involving Okna was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against both Okna and Windowizards Inc., a Pennsylvania dealer that sold Okna’s ComfortWeld windows to New Jersey consumers. The class covered all New Jersey residents who bought ComfortWeld windows from Windowizards between January 1, 2006, and July 31, 2009, and included over 1,000 customers. Lead plaintiff Quinna Cooper alleged that a Windowizards brochure carried an incorrect photograph of the type of insulation injected into the window frames.1DWM Magazine. Windowizards Inc and Okna Windows Settles Lawsuit With Customers2Vinyl Replacement Windows Forum. Windowizards Okna Settlement Discussion
The windows themselves reportedly met their technical standards and NFRC label ratings, so the dispute centered on the marketing claim rather than a performance defect.2Vinyl Replacement Windows Forum. Windowizards Okna Settlement Discussion
The parties settled on January 10, 2011. Okna agreed to inject additional insulation into the affected windows and to extend the warranty for class members. Cooper received a $5,000 incentive payment, and the court awarded plaintiffs’ counsel $175,000. Neither Okna nor Windowizards admitted liability.1DWM Magazine. Windowizards Inc and Okna Windows Settles Lawsuit With Customers
A Note on the Windowizards Collapse
The dealer at the center of the class action, Windowizards Inc., is a separate company from Okna and shut down on December 16, 2010, shortly before the settlement. Nearly 200 customers filed complaints with the Bucks County Consumer Protection Office over undelivered orders, and the company’s chairman later filed personal bankruptcy in Florida.3WHYY. Troubled Window Wizards May Face Charges4Philadelphia Inquirer. Windowizards Founder Declares Personal Bankruptcy in Florida Those consumer-protection issues concerned Windowizards, not Okna, which manufactured the product.
Okna Windows v. Diversified Structural Composites
In a very different matter, Okna was the plaintiff. The company sued Diversified Structural Composites Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in 2018, alleging breach of contract after a failed collaboration to develop a fiberglass window line. The two companies had signed a Memorandum of Agreement in January 2015 to design a Series 3500 fiberglass double-hung window, alongside a $1 million purchase order, and Okna had paid $80,000 for tooling.5Midpage. Okna Windows Corporation v Diversified Structural Composites
In early 2016, Diversified’s parent company withdrew support for the fenestration business and Diversified told Okna it was ending the project. Okna sought $1,782,300 in compensatory damages on claims of breach of express contract, breach of implied contract, breach of a requirements contract, and promissory estoppel.6vLex. Okna Windows v Diversified
Judge Padova ruled against Okna on every count in August 2019. The court pointed to an explicit “non-binding obligation” clause in the Memorandum of Agreement, which stated the document created no legally enforceable obligation on either party. The court also held that the attached purchase order was not a separate enforceable agreement, that the parties’ conduct did not establish an implied contract, and that no definite promise supported the promissory estoppel claim. Summary judgment went to Diversified.5Midpage. Okna Windows Corporation v Diversified Structural Composites6vLex. Okna Windows v Diversified
Tulik v. Okna Windows Corporation
The most recent case is an employment action. Adam Tulik filed suit on January 21, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against Okna Windows Corporation, its founders Voytek Kaniewski and Yarek Ostaniewicz, and a related entity, Black Estates LLC. The docket classifies it as a civil rights employment action citing the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993.7PACER Monitor. Tulik v Okna Windows Corporation et al
The record shows an amended complaint and motions concerning evidence of disability and unemployment compensation, but the specific factual allegations were not detailed in the available public materials. On February 9, 2026, Magistrate Judge Elizabeth T. Hey dismissed the case with prejudice under Local Rule 41.1(b), a procedural rule typically applied when parties fail to prosecute or comply with court orders.7PACER Monitor. Tulik v Okna Windows Corporation et al