303 F. Supp. 3d 1288
M.D. Fla.2017Background
- Plaintiff Michelle Hummel sued Tamko Building Products, Inc., alleging Tamko’s Heritage Series fiberglass asphalt shingles (sold in Florida since 2004) were defectively designed and failed long before their warranties expired. Hummel alleges Tamko knew of the defect, failed to stop sales or honor warranties, and denied her warranty claim in 2015.
- Hummel sought to certify a statewide damages class of current and former Florida owners of structures with Tamko Heritage shingles (2004–present) and a Rule 23(b)(2) declaratory/injunctive subclass.
- Hummel asserted claims for FDUTPA, breach of express warranty, strict product liability, negligence, and declaratory relief; she sought individualized monetary relief (actual/compensatory/consequential/punitive damages) and restitution.
- The court applied Rule 23(a) prerequisites (standing, numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy) and Rule 23(b)(3) predominance and superiority, and Rule 23(b)(2) standards for the subclass.
- Court found standing, numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy satisfied, but denied class certification because individual issues (notice, causation, provenance of shingles, exposure to representations, differing warranty terms) predominated over common questions.
- Court also denied the Rule 23(b)(2) declaratory subclass because the class seeks non-incidental individual monetary relief; directed plaintiff to show cause on subject-matter jurisdiction over remaining individual claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing (threshold) | Hummel purchased shingles, experienced algae/staining and water intrusion, filed warranty claim denied — alleges compensable injury | Tamko did not dispute standing | Held: Hummel has standing (alleged actual injury and redressability) |
| Breach of express warranty — predominance re: notice | Hummel: defect and warranty breach are common; individual issues limited to damages | Tamko: Florida law requires buyer notice within a reasonable time; whether notice was given is individualized | Held: Denied class certification for express warranty because notice is an individualized element that defeats predominance |
| Strict liability / manufacturing defect — predominance | Hummel: defect existence is common — either shingles were defective or not | Tamko: Shingles made at different plants with different processes/materials; need individualized proof of origin/process for each roof | Held: Denied class certification because provenance/manufacturing differences create individual issues defeating predominance |
| FDUTPA and representations — predominance; declaratory subclass (Rule 23(b)(2)) | Hummel: marketing and warranty representations were common and deceptive | Tamko: Exposure to representations differs; warranties varied over time and among buyers; monetary relief sought is individualized and not incidental | Held: Denied class certification for FDUTPA because individualized inquiry into who saw what and which warranty applies defeats predominance; denied Rule 23(b)(2) subclass because requested monetary relief is not incidental to declaratory relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing requires injury, causation, and redressability)
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011) (commonality and (b)(2) class limits; (b)(2) requires indivisible injunctive/declaratory relief)
- Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (1997) (predominance inquiry and manageability in class certification)
- Brown v. Electrolux Home Prods., Inc., 817 F.3d 1225 (11th Cir. 2016) (burden on party seeking certification; notice can be individualized and defeat predominance)
- Vega v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 564 F.3d 1256 (11th Cir. 2009) (Rule 23(a) and (b) framework for class certification)