Allen v. Andersen Windows, Inc.
913 F. Supp. 2d 490
S.D. Ohio2012Background
- Allen, a Mount Vernon, Ohio homeowner, purchased 400 Series Tilt Wash windows from Andersen by 1998 installation.
- The windows carried an express limited warranty: 20-year glass, 10-year non-glass components, with repair/replace remedies or refund options.
- Allen alleged mold and moisture intrusion from defective windows, with Andersen replacing some sashes but denying broader replacement.
- Plaintiff frims a nationwide class action alleging various federal and state-law claims based on defectively designed/manufactured windows.
- The case is brought in federal court under diversity jurisdiction, with a complaint filed on April 18, 2012, and is the subject of a motion to dismiss and to strike class claims.
- Andersen attached the warranty and additional documents; the court considered them as central to the claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether discovery tolling applies to express warranty under 1302.98(B). | Allen contends discovery rule tolls accrual because warranty covers future performance. | Andersen argues the warranty is not a future-performance warranty and accrual occurred at delivery, making claims time-barred. | Express warranty accrual limited; discovery rule not applicable to future performance warranty here. |
| Whether breach of express warranty based on failure to repair/replace is time-barred. | Alle n argues the warranty’s repair/replace obligation remains enforceable and timely. | Andersen argues only the non-repair/replace defect theory is timely; repair/replace theory may survive. | Remains viable to the extent Allen alleged failure to repair/replace; time-bar did not apply to that theory. |
| Whether implied warranties claim is time-barred. | Implied warranties claims are within four-year window from delivery. | Accrual occurs at delivery; discovery rule does not toll implied warranties. | Implied warranty claims time-barred; four years from delivery (no discovery tolling). |
| Whether Ohio CSPA claim is time-barred and whether equitable relief tolls or rescission is applicable. | Damages claims barred, but equitable relief could survive and tolling may apply to equitable claims. | CSPA damages barred by two-year statute; discovery not applicable to damages; equitable tolling/rescission limited. | CSPA damages barred; equitable rescission not pleaded; equitable relief claims not tolling the statute. |
| Whether ODTPA standing exists for a consumer plaintiff seeking relief. | ODTPA protects consumer interests; Allen asserts standing as a consumer plaintiff. | ODTPA protects commercial interests; Allen lacks standing as a consumer. | ODTPA claim dismissed for lack of standing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility standard for pleading claims)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (rejects pleading inferences based on mere conclusions)
- Std. Alliance Indus., Inc. v. Black Clawson Co., 587 F.2d 813 (6th Cir. 1978) (interprets future-performance warranty under 1302.98(B))
- Allis-Chalmers Credit Corp. v. Herbolt, 17 Ohio App.3d 230 (Ohio Ct. App. 1984) (distinguishes remedies from warranties; repairs/replace not future performance)
- Chemtrol Adhesives, Inc. v. Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co., 42 Ohio St.3d 40 (Ohio 1989) (establishes standards for notice and warranties under Ohio law)