Gorman v. American Honda Motor Co.
302 Mich. App. 113
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Plaintiff bought a new 2007 Acura MDX with express "bumper-to-bumper" and limited parts warranties; alleged chronic defects in the Active Damper System (ADS).
- Vehicle was repeatedly serviced during and after the warranty period; dealer records show repairs were made and vehicle returned to service each time.
- Plaintiff never returned the vehicle for repurchase, never demanded refund, and never notified Honda or the selling dealer that they were in breach during the warranty period; suit was filed well after the warranty expired.
- Plaintiff relied on post-warranty repair history and an unsigned, unsworn expert affidavit to argue that defects present during the warranty went unrepaired.
- Trial court granted summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(8) and (C)(10); plaintiff appealed; Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of express warranty | Repairs during warranty were unsuccessful; warranty’s essential purpose failed; post-warranty problems reflect unrepaired defects originating in warranty period | Honda honored warranty repairs; no evidence defendants failed to repair defects during warranty; plaintiff’s expert affidavit inadmissible | Affirmed: no material fact showing breach; repairs during warranty were timely and accepted; plaintiff’s evidence speculative or inadmissible |
| Breach of implied warranty (merchantability) | Implied warranty lasted despite express limits; vehicle not fit for ordinary use | Implied warranty was limited to express-warranty duration; plaintiff produced no evidence defect existed when vehicle left seller’s possession | Affirmed: no proof defect existed at sale or that express warranty was breached, so implied warranty claim fails |
| Reasonable pre-suit notice under UCC (MCL 440.2607) | Comment 4 permits lenient consumer notice standard; authorized dealer notices might suffice | Plaintiff gave no notice to seller/manufacturer within a reasonable time; filed suit only after warranty expired; statute bars remedy | Affirmed: plaintiff failed to notify within a reasonable time and is barred from remedies; repair history did not put defendants on notice of a claimed breach |
| Michigan Consumer Protection Act (MCPA) claim | MCPA liability may be shown by frustrated expectations or failure to deliver promised warranty benefits without proving breach of warranty | Plaintiff’s MCPA claim rests on alleged breach of warranty; because warranty claims fail, MCPA claim fails | Affirmed: MCPA claim based on failed warranty claims dismissed because no warranty breach shown |
| Independent cause of action for breach of UCC good-faith obligation | UCC’s good-faith obligation creates an independent actionable duty | Duty of good faith is a modifier of contracts/statutory duties, not a freestanding cause of action | Affirmed: Michigan does not recognize an independent cause of action for breach of the UCC good-faith obligation; claim dismissed under MCR 2.116(C)(8) |
Key Cases Cited
- Computer Network, Inc. v. AM Gen. Corp., 265 Mich. App. 309 (Mich. Ct. App.) (timely, completed repairs can defeat breach-of-warranty claim)
- American Bumper & Mfg. Co. v. TransTechnology Corp., 252 Mich. App. 340 (Mich. Ct. App.) (notice requirement under UCC 2-607 bars remedy when buyer fails to notify seller within a reasonable time)
- King v. Taylor Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 184 Mich. App. 204 (Mich. Ct. App.) (discusses revocation of acceptance and reasonable notice in consumer context)
- West v. General Motors Corp., 469 Mich. 177 (Mich.) (standard of review for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10))
- Belle Isle Grill Corp. v. Detroit, 256 Mich. App. 463 (Mich. Ct. App.) (Michigan does not recognize independent covenant-of-good-faith cause of action)
- Ulrich v. Fed. Land Bank of St. Paul, 192 Mich. App. 194 (Mich. Ct. App.) (no independent cause of action for implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing)
- Pack v. Damon Corp., 434 F.3d 810 (6th Cir.) (unsigned/unsworn statements cannot create genuine issue to defeat summary judgment)
- K & M Joint Venture v. Smith Int’l, Inc., 669 F.2d 1106 (6th Cir.) (interpretation of UCC comment regarding notice)