Detrick v. KCS International Inc., 781 F.Supp.3d 588

Background

Plaintiffs Norm and Judy Detrick purchased a new Cruisers Yachts 54 Cantius Flybridge (the "54 Fly") from dealer SkipperBud’s to make a long Great Loop trip; they allege the boat was delivered with numerous defects and nonconforming features (color, performance, joystick, generator, etc.).
Plaintiffs allege pre‑ and post‑delivery affirmative representations by Cruisers and SkipperBud’s (the "Promise Team") about product quality, specific performance metrics (speed, range), support, color availability, and post‑sale remediation; they claim reliance in deciding to buy and to continue working with defendants.
Plaintiffs hired Jet Thruster to install bow and stern thrusters after joystick problems; Plaintiffs allege defective/unworkmanlike installation by Jet Thruster and follow‑on corrective work paid for by Plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs allege Kohler manufactured the boat’s generator, which overheated repeatedly; Plaintiffs claim design/engineering defects and assert a breach of written warranty against Kohler.
Procedural posture: Plaintiffs filed a multi‑count complaint. The Court resolved three motions to dismiss/for judgment on the pleadings: (1) joint motion by Cruisers/SkipperBud’s and individual employees (granted in part/denied in part); (2) Kohler 12(c) motion (granted); (3) Jet Thruster 12(b)(6) motion (denied). Several defendants and individual claims were dismissed with prejudice; claims remaining against Cruisers, SkipperBud’s, and Jet Thruster.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether negligent misrepresentation claims are barred by Ohio's economic‑loss doctrine	Detricks: negligent misrepresentation is an exception to economic‑loss doctrine and claims are viable	Cruisers/SkipperBud’s: economic‑loss bars tort recovery for purely economic harm	Court: economic‑loss doctrine does not bar negligent misrepresentation; Counts I and II survive in part
Whether many alleged promotional statements are nonactionable puffery	Detricks: many statements were specific and verifiable (e.g., speed, range, color, no defects)	Cruisers/SkipperBud’s: many statements are subjective sales puffery and not actionable	Court: some statements are puffery (e.g., "best," "well‑engineered"), but several specific representations (colors, speed, range, promises re: no defects, training, reimbursement/meetings) are actionable; puffery defense only partly succeeds
Whether OCSPA claims must satisfy Rule 9(b) and, if so, whether Plaintiffs pleaded with particularity	Detricks: OCSPA is remedial and does not require Rule 9(b); or claims pleaded with sufficient detail	Cruisers/SkipperBud’s: OCSPA claims "sound in fraud," so Rule 9(b) applies and Plaintiffs lump defendants and fail to plead who, when, and how	Court: Rule 9(b) applies to these OCSPA claims; Plaintiffs failed to plead with particularity and largely lumped parties; OCSPA claims (Counts III, IV, V, VI, VII, XV) dismissed with prejudice
Whether Plaintiffs timely revoked acceptance under Ohio UCC 2‑608 (revocation of acceptance) against SkipperBud’s	Detricks: revocation communicated in late Sept/early Oct 2023, was within a reasonable time and before any substantial change; ongoing seller attempts to cure tolled deadlines	SkipperBud’s: Plaintiffs waited too long and their post‑revocation use/substantial modifications defeat revocation	Court: viewing allegations in Plaintiffs' favor, revocation was timely and not defeated by substantial post‑revocation change; Count VIII survives
Whether breach of implied warranty claims against manufacturer Cruisers require privity or agency/third‑party beneficiary status	Detricks: Cruisers was substantially involved and agency or close involvement creates privity	Cruisers: no privity with Plaintiffs; dealer was selling party; written warranty disclaims dealer agency	Court: Plaintiffs failed to plead agency or third‑party beneficiary relationship; implied warranty claims against Cruisers (Counts X, XI) dismissed for lack of privity
Whether Kohler's written warranty claim (MMWA/express warranty) survives when Plaintiff pleads generator design defects and alleges improper installation	Detricks: Kohler warranty covers generator; defects pleaded; warranty arguments premature	Kohler: its limited written warranty covers only materials/workmanship and applies only if product was properly installed; Plaintiffs allege improper installation and design defects (excluded)	Court: Limited warranty covers materials/workmanship and requires proper installation; Plaintiffs allege design defects and improper installation, so breach‑of‑written‑warranty claim (Count XIV) fails; Kohler dismissed
Whether Jet Thruster breached its contract and the implied warranty of workmanlike performance	Detricks: they contracted with Jet Thruster (invoice attached), Jet Thruster failed to complete work and performed unworkmanlike repairs; they seek contract damages and recovery for corrective costs	Jet Thruster: complaint lacks basic contract terms; purportedly disclaimed workmanlike warranty; some installation conformed to drawings	Court: invoice and allegations sufficiently plead existence/terms, breach, and damages — breach of contract claim survives; admiralty law applies to ship‑repair work so implied warranty of workmanlike performance applies and Count XVII survives; Jet Thruster motion denied

Key Cases Cited

Corporex Dev. & Constr. Mgmt. v. Shook, 835 N.E.2d 701 (Ohio 2005) (sets out Ohio economic‑loss doctrine framework)
Chemtrol Adhesives, Inc. v. Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co., 537 N.E.2d 624 (Ohio 1989) (discusses limits on tort recovery and economic loss)
HDM Flugservice GmbH v. Parker Hannifin Corp., 332 F.3d 1025 (6th Cir. 2003) (negligent‑misrepresentation claims not barred by economic‑loss doctrine)
McCullough v. Bill Swad Chrysler‑Plymouth, Inc., 449 N.E.2d 1289 (Ohio 1983) (factors for evaluating buyer's post‑revocation use/substantial change)
Abele v. Bayliner Marine Corp., 11 F. Supp. 2d 955 (N.D. Ohio 1997) (specific performance claims—manufacturer speed representations not puffery)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (federal pleading standard — plausibility)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (legal conclusions not entitled to pleading‑stage assumption of truth)
Lombard Corp. v. Quality Aluminum Prods. Co., 261 F.2d 336 (6th Cir. 1958) (distinguishing defects in materials/workmanship from design defects)