Fabian v. Fulmer Helmets, Inc.
2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 26087
| 6th Cir. | 2010Background
- Fabian represents a prospective class alleging Fulmer misrepresented helmet safety.
- NHTSA regulates helmet performance under the Safety Act and Standard 218, including an impact test and a chin-strap test.
- Standard 218 relies on self-certification with a DOT label; NHTSA enforces via testing and recalls.
- NHTSA tested Fulmer AF-50, large in 2000 (passed) and small in 2002 (failed in impact and labeling).
- Fulmer did not recall or inform purchasers after the 2002 failure; Fabian bought two large AF-50 helmets in 2004 and later sold one helmet in 2007; a friend died wearing the helmet in a crash.
- Fabian filed a Tennessee state-court action alleging fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation, breach of implied warranty, and unjust enrichment, later removed to federal court on diversity grounds; district court dismissed for failure to state a claim, and for alternative defenses including preemption and statute of limitations, with only the misrepresentation dismissal being appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Fabian states a plausible misrepresentation claim despite helmet size differences. | Fabian’s claims could reflect a defect affecting all AF-50 helmets, not just the tested size. | Different sizes may have different performance; large tested in 2000 passed while small in 2002 failed. | Plaintiff states a plausible misrepresentation claim; dismissal reversed. |
| Whether the Safety Act preempts Fabian’s state-law misrepresentation claims. | Savings clause preserves state tort claims despite federal standard. | Preemption should bar claims as obstacles to Standard 218. | Savings clause preserves claims; no obstacle preemption found. |
| Whether the district court properly dismissed under Twombly/Iqbal standards. | Allegations plausibly state misrepresentation and related duties. | Facts insufficient under plausibility standard at early stage. | Record shows allegations reach plausibility; remand for discovery. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (pleading must show plausible entitlement to relief)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility required after Twombly; not mere possibility)
- Geier v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 861 (U.S. 2000) (savings clause allows state claims unless obstructed by federal regime)
- Cipollone v. Liggett Grp., Inc., 505 U.S. 504 (U.S. 1992) (fraud claims not expressly preempted when they rest on general duty not to deceive)
- Altria Grp., Inc. v. Good, 555 U.S. 70 (U.S. 2008) (preemption analysis for state-law claims that do not create new standards)