In re Whirlpool Corp. Front-Loading Washer Products Liability Litigation
302 F.R.D. 448
N.D. Ohio2014Background
- Certification of a liability-only class of Ohio plaintiffs for mold/warranty claims related to Whirlpool Duet front-loading washers; class definition refined to include only certain models manufactured before 2009 and exclude ALPHA, SIERRA, and Wave Structure tubs; procedural history includes appeals to the Sixth Circuit and Supreme Court remands; plaintiffs move to modify the class definition, Whirlpool seeks decertification; court analyzes commonality, predominance, and scope with post-certification evidence.
- Initial class included multiple Duet models with various platforms; issues include mold problem across platforms and whether newer designs affect commonality; court notes discovery and expert reports addressing pre- and post-2009 designs and the steam feature.
- Court recognizes open-ended class concerns but opts for a narrowed, model-specific class definition to preserve due process and commonality; plan to notify excluded class members and allow separate suits if necessary.
- Key design changes over time include tub and bracket redesigns, addition of internal fan, sanitary/maintenance/steam cycles, and updated Use and Care Guides; Sierra/ALPHA distinctions create issues for commonality and require careful model-specific cutoff.
- Court ultimately certifies a redefined Ohio liability-only class of 20 Duet models manufactured through 9/30/2009, excluding ALPHA and Wave Structure tubs, while SIERRA machines are excluded; steam feature remains within class boundaries subject to other exclusions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether to redefine the class to reflect model-specific common issues | Plaintiffs seek exclusion of SIERRA, ALPHA, steam, and Wave Structure tubs to improve commonality | Whirlpool argues broader open-ended definition preserves claims | Partially granted; SIERRA excluded, Wave Structure excluded, ALPHA excluded; steam preserved in class. |
| Whether to decertify or modify the class | Modification preferable to decertification to preserve class efficiency | Modification insufficient due to post-certification changes | Modification favored; decertification denied. |
| Appropriate cut-off date for class period | End date near design-shift events (pre-2009) | Any single date is illogical given model variations | Court adopts model-specific cutoff, excluding Wave Structure and ALPHA; pre-2009 models included. |
| Whether SIERRA models should be included in the class | SIERRA models share defect characteristics with ACCESS/HORIZON | SIERRA design differs (no crevices) and should be excluded | SIERRA excluded from class. |
| Impact of steam feature on commonality | Steam feature does not cure defect; should be excluded | Steam feature did not affect core defect across models | Steam feature kept within class boundaries; not excluded. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Whirlpool Corp. Front-Loading Washer Prods. Liab. Litig., 722 F.3d 838 (6th Cir. 2013) (affirmed class certification; common questions predominate despite design differences)
- Amgen Inc. v. Conn. Retirement Plans & Trust Funds, 133 S. Ct. 1184 (U.S. 2013) (merits questions limited at certification stage; predominance required for class actions)
- Dajfin v. Ford Motor Co., 458 F.3d 549 (6th Cir. 2006) (class certification valid where common questions exist despite some members' lack of injury)
- Engle v. Liggett Group, Inc., 945 So.2d 1246 (Fla. 2006) (due process concerns in class actions; notice and opt-out considerations)
- Amgen Inc. v. Conn. Retirement Plans & Trust Funds, 133 S. Ct. 1184 (U.S. 2013) (reiterates scope of class certification and common questions)