Kuns v. Ford Motor Co.
926 F. Supp. 2d 976
N.D. Ohio2013Background
- Ms. Kuns purchased a new 2010 Mercury Mariner from a Ford dealer in Ohio.
- The rear liftgate glass shattered twice, first in the first winter and again a month later.
- Ms. Kuns had glass replaced at an independent shop, paying a $250 deductible; insurance covered most costs.
- Ford learned of a design defect causing liftgate glass breakage and later redesigned the window assembly and instructed dealers to replace glass free of charge in certain cases.
- Ms. Kuns sued under the Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act and for express and implied warranties; Ford moved for summary judgment and proposed amendments to cure jurisdictional defects.
- The court granted Ford summary judgment and granted the motion to amend the complaint to establish CAFA/MMWA jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CAFA/MMWA jurisdiction exists | Kuns contends CAFA jurisdiction exists due to large class size and damages. | Ford argues CAFA allows jurisdiction but MMWA limitations and privity keep issues unresolved. | Court held amended complaint cures jurisdiction under CAFA/MMWA. |
| Breach of the new vehicle warranty | Kuns asserts Ford breached the warranty by covering the glass defect and later not honoring it. | Ford argues the glass was not a manufacturing defect under the warranty and the second break fell outside warranty due to aftermarket window. | Court found no breach of the new vehicle warranty for the second replacement and excused due to non-factory window. |
| Effect of Technical Service Bulletins on warranty | Kuns claims TSBs expanded warranty coverage or created a new warranty obligating reimbursement. | Ford asserts TSBs do not constitute a written warranty covering presentment or reimbursements. | Court rejected claim that TSBs created new warranty or expanded coverage under MMWA disclosure requirements. |
| Privity and implied warranties | Kuns contends implied warranties extend to Ford despite lack of privity. | Ford argues Ohio law requires privity for implied warranties against manufacturers. | Court held no privity; cannot maintain implied warranties against Ford. |
| Product liability/recovery of economic damages | Kuns seeks economic damages for window replacement under product liability theory. | Ford argues Revised Ohio Product Liability Act limits such claims; no recovery of purely economic damages in tort when arising in contract. | Court dismissed product liability claims for economic damages and upheld contract-based remedy limitations. |
Key Cases Cited
- Healy v. Ratta, 292 U.S. 263 (1934) (federal jurisdiction requires statutes' limits to be respected)
- Keegan v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., 838 F. Supp. 2d 929 (C.D. Cal. 2012) (CAFA can confer jurisdiction when MMWA does not)
- Gafford v. Gen. Elec. Co., 997 F.2d 150 (6th Cir. 1993) (amount in controversy under CAFA assessed by preponderance of evidence)
- Golden v. Gorno Bros., Inc., 410 F.3d 879 (6th Cir. 2005) (CAFA threshold and class-size considerations for jurisdiction)
- Temple v. Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc., 133 Fed. Appx. 254 (6th Cir. 2005) (MMWA analysis of warranty claims under state law)
- Curl v. Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 114 Ohio St.3d 266 (2007) (privity requirements for implied warranties in Ohio)
- Cincinnati v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp., 95 Ohio St.3d 416 (2002) (Product liability damages and economics under Ohio law)
- Wimbush v. Wyeth, 619 F.3d 632 (6th Cir. 2010) (Ohio product liability and economic damages considerations)
- Newman-Green, Inc. v. Alfonzo-Larrain, 490 U.S. 826 (1989) (amendments to pleadings to cure jurisdictional deficiencies)