765 F. Supp. 2d 673
E.D. Pa.2011Background
- Plaintiff Aaron Martin filed a putative nationwide class action against Ford regarding Windstar rear-axle defects (model years 1999–2003).
- Amended Complaint asserts seven counts: UTPCPL and state consumer protection claims, breach of express and implied warranties, unjust enrichment, fraud, and negligent misrepresentation.
- Plaintiff defines the class as current Windstar owners/lessees in the U.S. with 1999–2003 models; two subcategories: axle already failed vs. not yet failed.
- Ford moved to strike class allegations under Rule 23 and to dismiss the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6).
- Ford later issued a voluntary recall of Windstars in high-corrosion areas; recall coverage overlaps but is not coextensive with the proposed class.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prematurity of class strike | Plaintiff maintains no class certification motion has been filed yet | Strike class allegations now to prune merits | Motion to Strike premature; denied as premature under Korman |
| Mootness from recall | Recall does not resolve all claims; not a complete remedy | Recall moots the case | Recall does not render claims moot; partial remedy possible; case survives |
| Notice/notification under UCC §2607(c)(1) | Plaintiff notified Ford of breach via complaints and public communications | Filing suit is not sufficient notification under §2607(c)(1) | Amended Complaint alleges reasonable notification; Counts III and IV survive |
| Economic loss doctrine and fraud claims | Some fraud-like claims independent of contract | Economic loss doctrine bars purely economic tort claims; Werwinski limitation applies | Counts I, VI, VII barred as intertwined with warranty; Count II survives to extent of non-Pennsylvania law claims; depends on state law context |
Key Cases Cited
- Korman v. The Walking Co., 503 F.Supp.2d 755 (E.D. Pa. 2007) (prematurity of Rule 23 motion; strike is premature before class certification)
- Chrysler Corp. v. United States, 158 F.3d 1350 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (recall did not moot the case; partial remedy possible)
- Bednarski v. Hideout Homes & Realty, Inc., 709 F.Supp. 90 (M.D. Pa. 1988) (constructive vs. actual notice under UCC; filing suit not notification)
- Werwinski v. Ford Motor Co., 286 F.3d 661 (3d Cir. 2002) (fraud exception to economic loss doctrine limited when misrepresentation relates to quality of goods)
- Lake v. Arnold, 232 F.3d 360 (3d Cir. 2000) (accrual of claim; when action suable)
- Sevast v. Kakouras, 591 Pa. 44, 915 A.2d 1147 (Pa. 2007) (when right to sue accrues; statute of limitations law)
- Duo: Duquesne Light Co. v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 66 F.3d 604 (3d Cir. 1995) (economic loss doctrine reach in tort vs. contract)
- Bohler-Uddeholm Am., Inc. v. Ellwood Group, Inc., 247 F.3d 79 (3d Cir. 2001) (economic loss doctrine; boundaries for tort recovery)