Grosse Pointe Law Firm, PC v. Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC
317 Mich. App. 395
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Plaintiff alleged defendants breached a repair-or-replace warranty and pursued claims under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (MMWA).
- The MMWA defines "written warranty" to include a written undertaking to refund, repair, replace, or otherwise remedy a product if it fails.
- The MMWA provides a private right of action but contains no express statute of limitations.
- Where no federal limitations period exists, courts borrow the most analogous state limitations period; here Michigan UCC § 2-725 (MCL 440.2725) provides a four-year limitations period for breach of contract for sale.
- Central legal question: when does the limitations period accrue for a repair-or-replace promise covered by the MMWA — at tender of delivery (UCC rule) or when the promised repair/replacement is not made (non-UCC approach)?
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When does the statute of limitations for an MMWA repair-or-replace claim begin to run? | Accrual occurs when the promised repair/replacement is refused or unsuccessful (when performance is due). | Accrual occurs at tender of delivery under UCC § 2-725, even for repair promises. | Breach accrues when the promised repair/replacement is not made (non-UCC accrual governs for repair promises). |
| Is a repair-or-replace promise an "express warranty" under the UCC? | The repair promise should be treated as a warranty triggering UCC accrual rules. | The repair promise is not an express warranty under the UCC; it is a separate undertaking/remedy. | Repair-or-replace promises do not meet the UCC's express-warranty definition. |
| Which law determines accrual date for a written repair promise under the MMWA? | UCC accrual rules apply because MCL 440.2725 supplies the limitations period. | Non-UCC contract principles (Restatement) should determine when performance is due for a repair promise. | Use MCL 440.2725 for the limitations period but use non-UCC law to determine accrual: breach occurs when performance is due and not made. |
| Does treating repair promises as accruing upon failed repair unduly extend liability? | Timely suits permitted to vindicate warranties; this interpretation prevents manufacturers from evading obligations. | Concern that accrual at failure could extend liability indefinitely. | No indefinite extension: breach can occur only within the warranty period, so limitations run at latest four years after warranty end. |
Key Cases Cited
- DelCostello v. Int’l Brotherhood of Teamsters, 462 U.S. 151 (federal statute of limitations borrowing principle)
- Snyder v. Boston Whaler, 892 F. Supp. 955 (W.D. Mich. 1994) (MMWA accrual analysis; UCC § 2-725 applied)
- Jackson v. Eddy’s LI RV Ctr, Inc., 845 F. Supp. 2d 523 (E.D.N.Y. 2012) (held repair-or-replace warranties don’t extend accrual beyond delivery absent specific post-delivery obligations)
- Mydlach v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 226 Ill. 2d 307 (repair warranty accrues when promised repairs are refused or unsuccessful)
- Cosman v. Ford Motor Co., 285 Ill. App. 3d 250 (distinguishing promise-to-repair from traditional warranty; accrual when promise breached)
- Abela v. Gen. Motors Corp., 469 Mich. 603 (state court precedent on persuasive weight of federal decisions)
- Centennial Ins. Co. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 74 Mich. App. 169 (discussed but not controlling on accrual interpretation)
- Ammex, Inc. v. Dep’t of Treasury, 273 Mich. App. 623 (treating out-of-jurisdiction analyses as persuasive)
- Woody v. Tamer, 158 Mich. App. 764 (discussing Restatement Contracts principles on when performance is due)