DeBlaker v. MI Windows and Doors, Inc.
2:12-cv-01258
| D.S.C. | Mar 24, 2011Background
- Plaintiffs allege defective MI Windows and Doors windows allow water intrusion, causing mold and property damage.
- MI issued a Limited Warranty limited to ten years, to original homeowner or second owner within five years, excluding labor/installation costs.
- DeBlaker is not the original owner; he asserts negligence in design/manufacture (Count I) and NC Gen. Stat. §75-1.1 claim (Count II).
- Thornes are original homeowners; they allege breach of express warranty, seeking coverage for removal and replacement costs including labor, and claim the labor exclusion is unconscionable.
- Court applies plausibility standard (Twombly) and analyzes the economic loss rule and reliance requirements; Thornes may amend to attach proper warranty and plead breach.
- Court denies dismissal of Counts I–II under economic loss rule and permits Thornes to amend Count III with the proper warranty.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the economic loss rule bar DeBlaker's negligence and §75-1.1 claims? | DeBlaker lacks contractual remedy but seeks tort and statutory relief. | Economic loss rule bars purely economic loss where a contract exists. | Not barred; no contract/warranty remedy available to DeBlaker, so claims survive. |
| Does §75-1.1 require actual reliance for a misrepresentation claim? | DeBlaker's unfair/deceptive practices claim plausibly pled from defendant's knowledge of defects. | Unfair/DEceptive claim requires actual reliance on a misrepresentation. | Plaintiff's claim plausibly pleaded; reliance not required for the basic UTP theory here, with knowledge of defect. |
| Can Thornes plead breach of warranty given the warranty's effective date and attachment? | Thorne claim should be covered by a warranty attached to Amended Complaint. | Thornes are not covered by the attached warranty due to its effective date; need proper warranty. | Thornes may amend to attach the proper warranty and plead breach; the court will assess on amendment. |
| Are DeBlaker's and Thornes' claims plausibly stated under the pleaded theories? | Complaint alleges defect, knowledge of defect, and warranty breaches. | Some claims lack specific elements or proper evidentiary support at pleading stage. | Counts I–II plausible; Counts appropriate for denial of dismissal; Thornes may amend to cure warranty pleading. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955 (2007) (pleading must contain plausible claims, not mere facts)
- Giarratano v. Johnson, 521 F.3d 298 (4th Cir. 2008) (rejects unwarranted inferences in pleadings)
- Ports Authority v. Lloyd A. Fry Roofing Co., 294 N.C. 73 (1978) (economic loss rule bars purely economic loss in tort when contract exists)
- Trustees of Rowan Tech. College v. J. Hyatt Hammond Assoc., Inc., 313 N.C. 230 (1985) (economic loss rule nuanced when contract/warranty remedy available)
- Lord v. Customized Consulting Specialty, Inc., 182 N.C. App. 635 (2007) (economic loss rule not controlling when no privity but contract/warranty remedy exists)
- Oates v. JAG, Inc., 314 N.C. 276 (1985) (support for economic loss doctrine principles in NC courts)
- Hospira, Inc. v. Alphagary Corp., 194 N.C. App. 695 (2009) (preference for evaluating warranty-related claims in NC appellate practice)
- Kelly v. Georgia-Pacific, LLC, 671 F. Supp. 2d 785 (2010) (contractual remedy analysis in economic loss rule context)