869 F. Supp. 2d 835
W.D. Ky.2012Background
- Ford installed a pre-Job 1.5 6.0L Power Stroke engine in 2003-04 F-Series Super Duty trucks, which had reported problems.
- Corder purchased a May 2004 Ford F-Series Super Duty and allegedly received a pre-Job 1.5 engine.
- Corder asserted KCPA damages, restitution, and other relief, claiming deception in selling the 2004 truck.
- This court granted Ford summary judgment, ruling no unfair, false, misleading, or deceptive acts and no ascertainable loss under the KCPA; unjust enrichment claim dismissed.
- The Sixth Circuit reversed on the KCPA claim, allowing a jury to consider whether Ford’s sale of the pre-Job 1.5 engine was unfair, false, misleading, or deceptive and that Corder suffered an ascertainable loss.
- Corder then sought certification as a nationwide class; the court denied certification, applying Kentucky law to the class located in Kentucky and noting varied state laws and reliance requirements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether reliance is required to state a KCPA damages claim | Corder argues reliance is not an element of KCPA damages | Ford contends reliance must be shown for damages under the KCPA | Reliance not required; KCPA damages require ascertainable loss causally linked to the deceptive practice |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. General Motors Corp., 979 S.W.2d 127 (Ky. 1998) (KCPA damages without reliance element; broad consumer protection)
- Craig & Bishop, Inc. v. Piles, 247 S.W.3d 897 (Ky. 2008) (KCPA interpretation; broad application to consumers)
- Flegles, Inc. v. TruServ Corp., 289 S.W.3d 544 (Ky. 2009) (loss causation required with respect to damages)
- Telcom Directories, Inc. v. Com. ex rel. Cowan, 833 S.W.2d 848 (Ky. Ct. App. 1991) (attorney general action; reliance discussion differs in private damages actions)
- Crescent Grocery Co. v. Vick, 240 S.W.2d 388 (Ky. 1922) (fraud elements; historical context on reliance in fraud claims)
- Corder v. Ford Motor Co., 285 Fed.Appx. 226 (6th Cir. 2008) ( Sixth Circuit found sufficient evidence for ASCERTAINABLE LOSS and causal link to jury)