Haag v. Hyundai Motor America
969 F. Supp. 2d 313
W.D.N.Y.2013Background
- Plaintiff filed a putative class action (removed under CAFA) alleging Hyundai breached an express service warranty by selling Santa Fe vehicles with premature brake deterioration.
- Claims asserted included: N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 349 consumer protection, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment; plaintiff withdrew a GBL § 350 claim at argument.
- Hyundai moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) and to strike paragraph 27 (online forum posts) under Rule 12(f).
- Plaintiff’s § 349 theory rested largely on generalized statements and allegations made “on information and belief” (including alleged inconsistent admissions to some customers).
- Plaintiff alleged specific mechanical problems (thin rotors; ungalvanized caliper pins/guides) supporting a defect in materials or workmanship; vehicle was purchased from an independent dealer (no direct privity with Hyundai).
- The court evaluated each claim for sufficiency: dismissed the § 349, implied warranty, contract, and unjust enrichment claims; sustained the breach of express warranty claim; denied the motion to strike paragraph 27.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of § 349 claim (misrepresentation/omission or "secret warranty") | Hyundai misled consumers or treated customers inconsistently; had knowledge of defect | Allegations are conclusory and largely based on "information and belief" and anonymous/generalized statements | § 349 claim dismissed for lack of particularized, non-conclusory allegations |
| Breach of express warranty — whether complaint impermissibly pleads design defect excluded from warranty | Alleged defects arise from materials/workmanship (covered) — rotors too thin; non-anti-corrosive caliper parts | Warranty excludes design defects; defendant contends plaintiff impermissibly seeks to treat a design defect as warrantable | Breach of express warranty claim survives; facts reasonably read to allege materials/workmanship defect and discovery needed |
| Breach of implied warranty / breach of contract — privity and "thing of danger" exception | Brakes are dangerous or exception should apply; implied warranty extends despite dealer purchase | No privity between Hyundai and remote purchaser; brakes here are not a "thing of danger" and vehicle meets ordinary transportation purpose | Claims dismissed for lack of privity and because brakes, as alleged, are not inherently dangerous; implied warranty claim fails |
| Unjust enrichment — alternative to express warranty | Plaintiff may plead quasi-contractual restitution if warranty remedy inadequate | Quasi-contract cannot lie where an express warranty governs the subject matter | Unjust enrichment claim dismissed as duplicative/foreclosed by express warranty claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Maurizio v. Goldsmith, 230 F.3d 518 (2d Cir. 2000) (elements of N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 349 require consumer-oriented conduct, material misleading act, and injury)
- Tinlee Enters., Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 834 F. Supp. 605 (E.D.N.Y. 1993) (conclusory allegations on information and belief insufficient to state a claim)
- Weaver v. Chrysler Corp., 172 F.R.D. 96 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) (generalized allegations about statements/advertising are insufficient for deceptive-practices claims)
- In re Porsche Cars N. Am., Inc., 880 F. Supp. 2d 801 (S.D. Ohio 2012) (where express warranties govern alleged defects, unjust enrichment claims are precluded)
- Statler v. Dell, Inc., 775 F. Supp. 2d 474 (E.D.N.Y. 2011) (express warranty covering subject matter bars quasi-contractual unjust enrichment claim)