Coil leaks and TXVs: three court-approved settlements

What the court records say about the Lennox, York and Trane class settlements — who was covered, what was alleged, what the manufacturer answered.

Checked against the sources below on October 7, 2026

The short answer

Three class actions over residential HVAC components ended in court-approved settlements: Lennox (2015) and York (2017) over uncoated copper coils, and Trane (2020) over thermal expansion valves. In each one the claims were allegations the manufacturer disputed, the settlement is not a finding of a defect, and the equipment was sold between 2007 and 2017.

How to read this page

A settlement ends a lawsuit; it does not decide who was right. The Lennox judgment says so in its own words: “Neither the Settlement Agreement, nor the fact or any terms of the Settlement, is evidence, or an admission or concession … of any fault, liability or wrongdoing whatsoever.” Everything quoted below comes from the court record, and this page says nothing about the equipment these manufacturers sell today.

Lennox — uncoated copper evaporator coils

Thomas v. Lennox Industries Inc.

U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois · No. 13-CV-7747

Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal, December 9, 2015

Who was in the class, as the court defined it: “All Persons who are residents of the United States and who purchased on or after October 29, 2007 through July 9, 2015 at least one uncoated copper tube Lennox brand, Aire-Flo brand, Armstrong Air brand, AirEase brand, Concord brand, or Ducane brand evaporator coil (whether purchased separately, as part of an air handler, or as part of a packaged unit), for their personal, their family, or their household purposes, that was purchased new, covered by an Original Warranty when purchased, and installed in a house, condominium unit, apartment unit, or other residential dwelling located in the United States.”
What was alleged: The plaintiffs alleged that the coils were susceptible to formicary corrosion — a chemical reaction involving copper, oxygen, water and organic acids — that causes them to leak refrigerant.
What the manufacturer said: “Lennox denies all of the Plaintiffs’ claims and allegations. Lennox maintains that the occurrence of formicary corrosion is rare, and when it does occur, it is typically the result of unique concentrations of various chemicals found and used in individual homes, including construction materials and household cleaners.” — Plaintiffs’ memorandum in support of preliminary approval, Doc. 68-1.
What the court did: Gave final approval to the settlement and closed the case. It did not rule on whether the product was defective.

Final Judgment (Doc. 112)Memorandum (Doc. 68-1)

York / Johnson Controls — uncoated copper coils

Dickerson v. York International Corp.

U.S. District Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania · No. 1:15-CV-1105

Final Judgment and Order Granting Final Approval of Class Action Settlement, August 22, 2017

Who was in the class, as the court defined it: “all individuals and entities in the United States who during the time period from January 1, 2008 to March 13, 2017, purchased an uncoated York, Fraser-Johnston, Luxaire, Coleman, Evcon, Guardian, Champion, or Dayton brand copper evaporator coil or copper condenser coil manufactured and sold by JCI or any of its Affiliates, separately or as part of a split system or packaged residential air handler, condensing unit, or HVAC unit, that is covered by the original limited five year warranty or extended ten year warranty.”
What was alleged: “Plaintiffs allege that the uncoated copper coils used by JCI are known to be vulnerable to formicary corrosion, pitting corrosion, and other defects which result in costly refrigerant leaks under normal usage.”
What the manufacturer said: “JCI denies these allegations. JCI maintains that only 1.5 percent of all coils manufactured from 2010 to present have failed for any reason, and that less than 10 percent of that number are believed to have failed due to corrosion. JCI also contends that environmental factors rather than manufacturing defects are likely responsible for the limited occasions of corrosion-induced damage.” — The court’s memorandum, Doc. 100 (record citations omitted).
What the court did: Gave final approval to the settlement and closed the case. It did not rule on whether the product was defective.

Final Judgment (Doc. 101)Court memorandum (Doc. 100)

Trane / American Standard — thermal expansion valves

Livingston v. Trane U.S. Inc.

U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey · No. 2:17-cv-06480

Final Order and Judgment, August 12, 2020

Who was in the class, as the court defined it: “all United States residents who are current or former owners of Trane and American Standard 1.5- to 5-ton air conditioners and heat pumps with a serial number reflected on Exhibit I to the Settlement agreement.”
What was alleged: “According to the Complaint, Defendant’s systems contain defective thermal expansion valves (“TXVs”). The defect arises from a chemical rust inhibitor, Ryconox, used in manufacturing by one of Trane’s suppliers from mid-2013 through at least late 2014.”
Where that description comes from: The court’s opinion on the motion to dismiss, Doc. 49 (record citations omitted). It is the court’s summary of what the complaint said, not a finding by the court.
What the court did: Gave final approval to the settlement and closed the case. It did not rule on whether the product was defective.

Final Order and Judgment (Doc. 123)Opinion (Doc. 49)

What did not end in a class settlement

Two things that get repeated online do not match the court dockets:

Carrier and the TXV. Oddo v. United Technologies Corp. (C.D. Cal., No. 8:15-cv-01985) was closed on a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice, entered May 17, 2024. There is no court-approved class settlement in that case.
Goodman and evaporator coils. In Gustafson v. Goodman Manufacturing Co. (D. Ariz., No. 3:13-cv-08274) the court denied class certification on March 14, 2016. Kotsur v. Goodman Global, Inc. (E.D. Pa., No. 2:14-cv-01147) ended in a stipulation of dismissal in December 2016.

What this means on a service call

These settlements concern equipment from roughly 2007 to 2017. This page does not say whether any benefit is still available — the claim periods were set by each settlement, and the manufacturer’s warranty department is who can answer for a specific unit.
Formicary corrosion is a documented way an indoor coil leaks, on any brand. Both coil manufacturers above attribute it to the environment in the home rather than to the coil. Indoor coil leaks, in the failure guide →
For what is on the federal record about a specific model, see the CPSC safety recalls.

This is a report of public court records, not legal advice.

Sources

Thomas v. Lennox Industries Inc., N.D. Ill. No. 13-CV-7747 — Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal (Doc. 112)
Dickerson v. York International Corp., M.D. Pa. No. 1:15-CV-1105 — Final Judgment (Doc. 101) and memorandum (Doc. 100)
Livingston v. Trane U.S. Inc., D.N.J. No. 2:17-cv-06480 — Final Order and Judgment (Doc. 123)
Oddo v. United Technologies Corp., C.D. Cal. No. 8:15-cv-01985 — docket — closed on a stipulated dismissal; no class settlement
Gustafson v. Goodman Manufacturing Co., D. Ariz. No. 3:13-cv-08274 — docket — class certification denied

Federal rules change. This page reports what the sources said on the date above; the source is the authority, and state or local rules can be stricter. It is reference material, not legal advice and not installation guidance.