In Re Zurn Pex Plumbing Products Liability
644 F.3d 604
| 8th Cir. | 2011Background
- Minnesota homeowners sue Zurn Pex and Zurn Industries over alleged inherent defect in brass crimp fittings used with Zurn PEX systems.
- Plaintiffs claim stress corrosion cracking (SCC) causes leaks; Zurn contends SCC is not inherent and results from installation, water quality, or other factors.
- District court allowed a tailored Daubert analysis at class certification and certified warranty and negligence classes but denied consumer protection class.
- Two plaintiffs’ experts (Staehle and Blischke) offered testimony on SCC and failure rates; Zurn moved to strike but was denied.
- Class definitions: warranty class includes all Minnesota owners with Zurn PEX systems; dry plaintiffs (non-leaking) included in warranty class per district order; district court left merits discovery open for potential changes.
- Merits discovery bifurcation and Rule 23(b)(3) predominance analysis framed the appellate review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dry plaintiffs have standing to sue for warranty damages | Dry plaintiffs have cognizable injury under Minnesota warranty law. | Dry plaintiffs lack injury because defect has not manifested. | No standing issue affirmed; dry plaintiffs have cognizable warranty claims. |
| Whether warranty class findings predominate over individual issues | Common evidence suffices to prove breach for universal defect. | Individual causation and installation factors will predominate. | Predominance found for warranty class. |
| Whether negligence class claims predominate over individual issues | Uniform defect and common evidence support class-wide liability. | Causation is highly individualized. | Predominance found for negligence class. |
| Whether district court should have conducted full Daubert analysis at certification | Focused Daubert suffices; no need for full pre-discovery analysis. | Should have full Daubert inquiry before certifying. | District court’s tailored Daubert analysis affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Avritt v. Reliastar Life Ins. Co., 615 F.3d 1023 (8th Cir. 2010) (rigorous Rule 23(b)(3) analysis required)
- Blades v. Monsanto Co., 400 F.3d 562 (8th Cir. 2005) (rigorous analysis for class certification; focus on common evidence)
- O'Neil v. Simplicity, Inc., 574 F.3d 501 (8th Cir. 2009) (standing require manifestation of defect for warranty claims)
- Briehl v. Gen. Motors Corp., 172 F.3d 623 (8th Cir. 1999) (injury in fact required in products liability standing)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) (gatekeeping reliability standard for expert testimony)
- General Telephone Co. of the Southwest v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147 (1982) (rigorous analysis requirement for class certification)