795 F.Supp.3d 525
D.N.J.2025Background
- Plaintiffs, current and former owners/lessees of 2013–2024 Dodge Ram 1500 trucks, allege a defect in the electric power steering (EPS) units causing sudden loss of steering.
- Plaintiffs filed a putative class action against FCA US LLC (FCA), asserting various state law claims for implied warranty and consumer fraud, among others, on behalf of class members in eight different states.
- Plaintiffs allege FCA knew of the defect but concealed it, supported by thousands of consumer complaints, NHTSA data, safety recalls, and warranty claims.
- Several plaintiffs experienced steering failures after the expiry of express warranties, incurred significant repair costs, and claim FCA’s advertising misled them about product safety and durability.
- FCA moved to dismiss under Rules 8(a), 12(b)(6), and 9(b), challenging the sufficiency of defect allegations, privity requirements, lack of pre-suit notice, and failure to plead fraud with particularity.
- The court granted in part and denied in part FCA’s motion, allowing certain claims to proceed, particularly under Florida (FDUPTA, implied warranty, fraud by concealment) and Pennsylvania (UTPCPL, implied warranty) law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of defect pleading | Defect sufficiently alleged by citing malfunction, safety risk | Plaintiffs didn't plead defect with enough detail | Plaintiffs' defect allegations sufficient |
| Implied warranty—privity | Third-party beneficiary exception (esp. in Florida); unconscionable | Privity required; no exception applies | Only Florida and Pennsylvania survive |
| Fraud by omission—duty to disclose | Duty via safety defect, partial disclosure, or superior knowledge | No duty without fiduciary/confidential relationship | Only Florida, Pennsylvania claims survive |
| Knowledge of defect—fraud claims | FCA had knowledge via recalls, NHTSA complaints, warranty data | NHTSA/consumer complaints insufficient to show knowledge | Plaintiffs pled FCA’s knowledge sufficiently |
| Affirmative misrepresentations | FCA ads & statements deceptive/puffery creates duty | Ads are puffery/not actionable; vague allegations | Ads/statements are puffery, not actionable |
| Economic loss rule | Fraud and consumer protection claims not barred | Economic loss rule bars tort claims for economic damages | Not a bar to FDUPTA/UTPCPL/statutory fraud |
Key Cases Cited
- Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224 (3d Cir. 2008) (pleading sufficiency under Rule 8)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility pleading standard for Rule 12(b)(6))
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausible claim required at pleadings)
- Clemens v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 534 F.3d 1017 (9th Cir. 2008) (privity needed for implied warranty in CA)
- Duquesne Light Co. v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 66 F.3d 604 (3d Cir. 1995) (latent defects and warranty expiry)
- Green v. G.M.C., 625 A.2d 1172 (Pa. 1993) (accrual of warranty claims at delivery)
- Lightning Lube, Inc. v. Witco Corp., 4 F.3d 1153 (3d Cir. 1993) (fraud by omission, duty to disclose)
- Coba v. Ford Motor Co., 932 F.3d 114 (3d Cir. 2019) (affirmative and omission-based fraud)
- Tiara Condo. Ass’n, Inc. v. Marsh & McLennan Cos., Inc., 110 So. 3d 399 (Fla. 2013) (economic loss rule in FL)
- Kensey, United Jersey Bank v. Kensey, 704 A.2d 38 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1997) (when duty to disclose arises)
- Landmark Screens, LLC v. Morgan, Lewis, & Bockius, LLP, 676 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (elements of fraudulent concealment, CA)
- Ponzio v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, 447 F. Supp. 3d 194 (D.N.J. 2020) (partial disclosure and duty to disclose)
- Stevenson v. Mazda Motor of Am., Inc., 2015 WL 3487756 (D.N.J. 2015) (no special relationship duty for manufacturer)