961 F. Supp. 2d 875
N.D. Ohio2013Background
- Plaintiff Maureen Huffman bought a Frigidaire front‑loading washer manufactured by Electrolux in April 2008 and alleges a persistent, moldy/musty odor and contamination beginning in 2011–2012. She filed a class action in October 2012 on behalf of Ohio purchasers of Electrolux‑branded front‑loading washers.
- Complaint alleges common‑law claims (breach of warranty, negligent design, negligent failure to warn), U.C.C. claims (breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability), and OPLA claims (defective manufacture, defective design, inadequate warning/nonconformance with representations).
- Electrolux moved to partially dismiss the common‑law product liability claims and to strike class allegations. Key legal disputes concern (1) whether a plaintiff may pursue common‑law claims for only economic loss while also pursuing OPLA compensatory claims, (2) sufficiency and timeliness of express and implied warranty claims, and (3) class certification viability.
- The machine’s one‑year limited repair/replace warranty is at issue: Electrolux contends warranties expired before plaintiff’s complaints; plaintiff contends the repair/replace obligation did not accrue until Electrolux failed to repair after her 2012 complaints.
- The court denied in part and granted in part the motion to dismiss: common‑law product liability claims were not dismissed; express warranty (repair/replace) survives at least as to accrual after the alleged refusal to repair; implied warranty (merchantability) is time‑barred; motion to strike class allegations denied as premature.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff may plead OPLA (compensatory) and common‑law product claims seeking only economic loss simultaneously | Huffman may plead inconsistent/alternative theories; LaPuma permits common‑law claims seeking only economic loss outside OPLA; Rule 8 allows alternative pleading | Electrolux: OPLA supersedes common‑law product claims that arise from same actionable conduct; allowing both would force defendant to face duplicative remedies | Court: Permitted both claims. OPLA does not preclude pleading common‑law economic‑loss claims in the alternative; dismissal denied. |
| Sufficiency of express warranty claim (repair/replace) — manufacturing vs. design defect | Complaint pleads mold accumulation, water retention locations, and systemic materials/workmanship issues supporting manufacturing defect theory | Electrolux: Repair/replace warranties cover defects in materials/workmanship, not design; pleadings are conclusory and more consistent with design defect | Court: Complaint sufficiently alleges facts that plausibly support either manufacturing or design defect; express warranty claim survives pleading stage. |
| Whether one‑year repair/replace warranty expired or failed of essential purpose (timing) | Warranty ineffective for latent mold problem that manifests after ~3 years; accrual did not occur until Electrolux failed to repair in 2012 | Electrolux: Warranty expired before manifestation; latent defect does not toll the limit | Court: One‑year limit is reasonable as a matter of law and did not fail of essential purpose here; but breach of repair/replace accrues when seller fails to repair, so Huffman’s 2012 demand and suit were timely as to repair/replace claim. |
| Implied warranty of merchantability (U.C.C.) — timebar and privity | Plaintiff did not contest the one‑year limit specifically for implied warranty but argued agent/privity issues with Lowe’s | Electrolux: Implied warranty limited to one year and expired; privity lacking | Court: Implied warranty claim is time‑barred by the one‑year limitation; privity issue not reached. |
| Motion to strike class allegations | Huffman points to Glazer/Whirlpool and argues discovery is needed; liability can be tried classwide with damages individualized | Electrolux: OPLA requires individualized proof of causation/damages, so class certification is infeasible | Court: Denied motion to strike as premature; factual record is needed and Glazer (6th Cir.) supports that liability commonality can predominate and damages can be bifurcated. |
Key Cases Cited
- Carrel v. Allied Prods. Corp., 78 Ohio St.3d 284 (Ohio 1997) (OPLA and survivability of negligent design claims under common law)
- LaPuma v. Collinwood Concrete Co., 75 Ohio St.3d 64 (Ohio 1996) (claims alleging only economic loss lie outside OPLA)
- Wimbush v. Wyeth, 619 F.3d 632 (6th Cir. 2010) (legislative amendment clarified OPLA supersedes common‑law negligence claims seeking compensatory damages)
- Chemtrol Adhesives, Inc. v. American Manufacturers Mut. Ins. Co., 42 Ohio St.3d 40 (Ohio 1989) (repair/replace remedies and essential purpose doctrine)
- Goddard v. General Motors Corp., 60 Ohio St.2d 41 (Ohio 1979) (when limited warranty fails its essential purpose)
- Glazer v. Whirlpool Corp., 722 F.3d 838 (6th Cir. 2013) (affirming class certification on liability where common issues predominate; damages may be individualized)
- Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 133 S. Ct. 1426 (U.S. 2013) (class certification denial where plaintiffs failed to show damages measurable on a classwide basis)