Hope v. Nissan North America, Inc.
353 S.W.3d 68
Mo. Ct. App.2011Background
- Putative class action against Nissan North America alleging a cosmetic bubbling dashboard defect in Infiniti FX35/FX45 models (2003–2007) sold in Missouri.
- Class defined by ownership of FX Vehicles in Missouri; certification granted by trial court; Nissan sought interlocutory appeal under Rule 52.08.
- Nissan implemented interim measures: warranty extension to eight years with free replacement and loaner cars; changes to dashboard curing processes begun in 2006, revised materials in 2009.
- Plaintiffs allege economic damages from stigma/diminished resale value even if bubbling never manifested in their vehicles.
- Key procedural posture: the court stayed the action pending interlocutory appeal; court addresses class definition, predominance, and which claims may be certified.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the class definition was proper and subject to refinement | Hope argues initial definition adequate; court should permit refinement. | Nissan contends definition is imprecise/overbroad and that Nissan should not be compelled to propose refinements. | Trial court's refinement direction reversed; strike refinement directive; class definitional issues remanded. |
| Do common issues predominate for MMPA claims | MMPA claims rely on Nissan's conduct; common issues predominate. | Some elements (deception, causation, ascertainable loss) require individual proof. | Predominance upheld for MMPA claims; class action affirmed for MMPA. |
| Do common issues predominate for breach of express warranty | Class-wide proof of misrepresentation and damage can be shown; broad class feasible. | Express warranty claims require individualized proof (reading materials, privity, actual manifestation). | Predominance not established; certification reversed for express warranty. |
| Do common issues predominate for breach of implied warranty of merchantability | Dashboard bubbling constitutes latent defect causing diminished value; common issue framework applicable. | Most class members lack injury or manifestation; individual inquiries predominate. | Predominance not established; certification reversed for implied warranty. |
| Is the trial court's overall approach to class certification proper given the above distinctions | Overall efficiency of class treatment appropriate for many common issues. | Because pivotal claims lack predominance, class treatment is not superior. | Affirmed for MMPA; reversed for express/implied warranty; remand to de-certify those claims; strike assist/definition-refinement provision. |
Key Cases Cited
- Plubell v. Merck & Co., 289 S.W.3d 707 (Mo. App. 2009) (predominance; MMPA class action guidance)
- Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Coca-Cola Co., 249 S.W.3d 855 (Mo. banc 2008) (overbreadth/indefiniteness of class definition; manageability)
- Briehl v. General Motors Corp., 172 F.3d 623 (5th Cir. 1999) (no injury absent manifestation; no-injury products liability guidance)
- O'Neil v. Simplicity, Inc., 574 F.3d 501 (8th Cir. 2009) (manifestation requirement; no-injury theory cautions)
- Feinstein v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 535 F. Supp. 2d 595 (S.D.N.Y. 1982) (predominance and economic damages in implied warranty context)