813 F. Supp. 2d 1021
N.D. Ind.2011Background
- Atkinson sues Clairol for injuries from Clairol/Textures & Tones alleging IPLA, UCC, and tort theories.
- Clairol moves to dismiss Counts II, III, and IV under Rule 12(b)(6); Atkinson responds and Clairol replies.
- Court explains IPLA governs actions by a user/consumer against a manufacturer for physical harm caused by a product.
- Court holds negligence and strict liability (Counts III and IV) can merge into a single IPLA products liability claim; warranty claims are analyzed separately.
- Court analyzes whether Count II (breach of express/implied warranties) sounds in tort or contract and privity requirements.
- Court denies portion of motion to the extent of merging tort-based warranty claims into IPLA and allowing contract-based implied warranty of merchantability; dismisses express warranty and implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose claims that sound in contract.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do Counts III and IV merge into IPLA claim? | Atkinson seeks merging of negligence and strict liability into IPLA claim. | Counts III and IV are duplicative and should be dismissed; IPLA handles the single product liability claim. | Count III and IV merged into one IPLA products liability claim. |
| Is Count II a warranty claim preempted by IPLA or a contractual claim under UCC? | Count II sounds in contract under UCC; not superseded; seeks contract-based damages. | Count II sounds in tort; merged into IPLA; no privity for some warranty claims. | Count II survives to the extent it sounds in contract (implied merchantability); tort-based warranty claims merged into IPLA; express warranty and fitness for particular purpose claims dismissed for lack of privity. |
| Does privity bar the warranty claims that sound in contract? | Atkinson should be able to pursue warranty claims without strict privity for merchantability. | Privity required for express warranty and fitness for particular purpose; lacking privity defeats those claims. | Vertical privity not required for implied warranty of merchantability; required for express and fitness claims; those are dismissed for lack of privity while merchantability survives contractually. |
| What is the status of implied warranty of merchantability claim in Count II? | Implied warranty of merchantability exists; can recover contract-based damages. | Implied warranty claims ratify under IPLA; some components merged into IPLA. | Implied warranty of merchantability survives to the extent it sounds in contract. |
| Impact of IPLA on damages and the relation to UCC damages? | Damages align with contract and tort concepts under separate theories. | Damages limited by IPLA/contract distinctions; tort damages folded into IPLA. | Damages under contract-based warranty claims governed by contract; tort damages merged into IPLA for non-contractual aspects. |
Key Cases Cited
- Spangler v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 752 F. Supp. 1437 (S.D. Ind. 1990) (IPLA interplay with warranties and preemption considerations)
- Kovach v. Midwest, 913 N.E.2d 193 (Ind. 2009) (IPLA versus warranty theories and successor remedies)
- Goodin, 822 N.E.2d 952 (Ind. 2005) (privity and warranty claims; merchantability vs. fitness analysis)
- Hunt v. Unknown Chem. Mfr. No. One, No. IP 02-389-C, 2003 WL 23101798 (S.D. Ind. 2003) (privity considerations in implied/express warranty claims)
- B&B Paint Corp., 568 N.E.2d 1019 (Ind. Ct. App. 1991) (privity and warranty claims and contract vs. tort distinctions)
- Gunkel v. Renovations, Inc., 822 N.E.2d 150 (Ind. 2005) (damages under contract vs. tort for defective product)
- Hitachi Constr. Mach. Co. v. AMAX Coal Co., 737 N.E.2d 460 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (UCC and IPLA remedies coexist; distinctions clarified)
- Gunkel v. Renovations, Inc., 822 N.E.2d 150 (Ind. 2005) (damages under contract vs tort for defective product)
- Swanson v. Citibank, N.A., 614 F.3d 400 (7th Cir. 2010) (pleading standard; plausibility and Twombly/Iqbal guidance)
- Savory v. Lyons, 469 F.3d 667 (7th Cir. 2006) (Rule 12(b)(6) standard and notice pleading guidance)
- Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (U.S. 2007) (notice pleading standard)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility standard for pleading)
- Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (pleading must raise right to relief above speculative level)