937 F. Supp. 2d 599
D.N.J.2013Background
- Consolidated putative class action with four plaintiffs (three NJ, one NY) regarding defective ice makers in Electrolux refrigerators.
- Electrolux moved to dismiss most claims; plaintiffs moved to appoint interim class counsel.
- Plaintiffs allege Electrolux knew of defects since February 2008 and sold refrigerators with known defects.
- Plaintiffs claim repairs during the one-year express warranty were temporary and did not cure the defect.
- Plaintiffs argue NJPLA does not subsume their claims because they are not classic product liability claims and the defect affects multiple Electrolux models.
- Court's ruling: partial grant/partial denial on Electrolux's motions; interim class counsel denied without prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does NJPLA subsume NJ claims arising from defective ice makers? | NJ plaintiffs not product liability claims; NJPLA exclusive remedy for product harm. | NJPLA governs harm by defective products; claims beyond product damage fall under NJPLA. | NJPLA does not subsume these claims; some claims survive. |
| Do NJ plaintiffs lack standing to represent models they did not purchase? | Standing for purchased models; class issues premised on common defect across models. | Lack of privity/standing for non-purchased models. | Standing issues not ripe at this stage; may be revisited at certification. |
| Can plaintiffs pursue breach of express warranty claims within the one-year period? | Defects manifested and were not repaired within the one-year warranty. | Warranty does not guarantee defect-free product; latent defects post-warranty not actionable. | Plaintiffs may proceed on express warranty claims that alleged failure to repair/replace during the year. |
| Can plaintiffs pursue breach of implied warranties and CFA/fraud claims? | Implied warranties breached; CFA and fraud claims supported by knowledge of defect and misleading marketing. | Claims fail due to lack of privity or scope of warranty; marketing puffery not actionable. | Implied warranty claims survive; CFA and common-law fraud/negligent misrepresentation survive; unjust enrichment analyzed. |
| Should Lederer proceed under NY law with related claims? | Lederer has NY-based claims similar to NJ plaintiffs; parallel theories allowed. | NY privity and scope issues may bar certain NY claims; some claims limited. | Lederer’s GBL §349 and fraud/neglect claims survive; NY implied warranty claim dismissed for lack of privity; express warranty issues limited. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sinclair v. Merck & Co., Inc., 195 N.J. 51, 948 A.2d 587 (2008) (N.J.) (NJPLA scope guidance; expansive view of product liability act)
- In re Lead Paint Litig., 191 N.J. 405, 924 A.2d 484 (2007) (N.J.) (NJPLA and broad remedial purpose; integrated view of product liability)
- Ford Motor Credit Co., LLC v. Mendola, 427 N.J. Super. 226, 48 A.3d 366 (2012) (N.J.) (To prove breach of express warranty, non-performance suffices)
- Oscar v. BMW of North America, LLC, 274 F.R.D. 498 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (S.D.N.Y.) (Express warranty scope; future defects not automatically actionable)
- Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank v. Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc., 651 F. Supp. 2d 155 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (S.D.N.Y.) (Fraud elements; reliance standard for NY law)
- Westport Marina, Inc. v. Boulay, 783 F. Supp. 2d 344 (E.D.N.Y. 2010) (E.D.N.Y.) (Privity considerations for implied warranties)