Doll v. Ford Motor Co.
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95427
D. Maryland2011Background
- Plaintiffs sue Ford on behalf of themselves and others who bought/leased 2004–2005 Ford Freestar/Mercury Monterey in specified states.
- Plaintiffs allege defective torque converters causing sudden loss of power, operability and safety hazards.
- Plaintiffs claim Ford concealed knowledge of the defect and its safety implications.
- Plaintiffs incurred repair costs and seek remedies under multiple state consumer-protection regimes and related theories.
- Ford moves to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) alleging statute of limitations, privity, notice, merchantability, and unjust enrichment defenses.
- Court grants-in-part and denies-in-part Ford’s motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| tolling for fraudulent concealment tolls statute of limitations | Fraudulent concealment tolls time bar | No tolling absent fiduciary/confidential duty | Tolled under federal pleadings and Safety Act duty to disclose |
| privity for Illinois and New York implied warranty claims | Agency via dealer suffices for privity (Illinois/New York) | No privity; dealer not Ford; Hubbard exception not applicable | Abraham (Illinois) granted dismissal; Ziehrs (New York) denied due to danger exception |
| notice requirement under UCC 2-607 for implied warranties | Plaintiffs provided sufficient notice to Ford | Plaintiff Doll/Mixon/Regensburger failed to notify immediate seller | Maryland and South Carolina notices dismissed for Doll and Mixon; Regensburger dismissed for lack of proper notice |
| unmerchantable vehicle under implied warranty | Torque converter/transmission defects render vehicles unmerchantable | Defect post-warranty life does not establish unmerchantability | Pollack and Ziehrs claims denied/denied for merchantability; others preserved where adequately pled |
| Magnuson-Moss implied warranty under Act | State-law implied warranties incorporated; tolling applied | Same as state-law claims; some claims time-barred | Grant as to Abraham, Doll, Mixon, Regensburger; denial as to Pollack/Ziehrs |
| consumer protection claims sufficiency (9(b) and related standards) | Omissions and concealment qualify; safety concerns | Some claims lack causation/particularity; some are barred by economic loss doctrine | FDUTPA, MD CPA, ME MUTPA, NY DTPA-like claims sustained for several plaintiffs; UTPCPL claim of Regensburger barred by economic loss doctrine |
| unjust enrichment claims vs. express contract | Can plead in the alternative | Contract bars unjust enrichment except where fraud/bad faith shown | Doll sustained for fraud-based exception; others dismissed for lack of contract-bypass evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Lloyd v. General Motors Corp., 397 Md. 108 (Md. 2007) (elements of fraudulent concealment tolling)
- Hill v. Brush Engineered Materials, Inc., 383 F.Supp.2d 814 (D. Md. 2005) (duty to disclose may arise under federal authority)
- Semitekol v. Monaco Coach Corp., 582 F.Supp.2d 1009 (N.D. Ill. 2008) (agency concepts and liability facts in agency discussions)
- Diaz v. Paragon Motors of Woodside, Inc., 424 F.Supp.2d 519 (E.D.N.Y. 2006) (merchantability and ordinary purpose for vehicles)
- Carlson v. General Motors Corp., 883 F.2d 287 (4th Cir. 1989) (implied warranty of merchantability for vehicles)
- Werwinski v. Ford Motor Co., 286 F.3d 661 (3d Cir. 2002) (economic loss doctrine in UTPCPL fraud claims)
- Perkins v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 383 N.J. Super. 99, 890 A.2d 997 (N.J. 2006) (safety considerations in CFA claims; warranty-life context)
- Westchester Cnty. v. Gen. Motors Corp., 555 F.Supp. 290 (S.D.N.Y. 1983) (privity and economic loss in implied warranty context)