476 F.Supp.3d 625
S.D. Ohio2020Background
- Plaintiff Joseph Mayernik bought CertainTeed Symphony lightweight composite slate shingles in 2013 with a 50-year warranty and altered his roof structure for the lighter product.
- In late 2018 some shingles cracked, discolored, and caused water intrusion; a CertainTeed inspector acknowledged defects and assigned a claim number.
- CertainTeed later said it no longer manufactures the Symphony shingle and refused to perform the promised repair/replacement, offering instead asphalt shingles (which the roof cannot support) and later a monetary release offer.
- Plaintiff sourced a substitute DaVinci lightweight shingle and submitted replacement cost estimates (materials, installation, flashing removal) totaling substantial sums, but CertainTeed did not complete repairs.
- Plaintiff sued in February 2020 asserting OCSPA, breach of express warranty under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (MMWA), breach of express warranty under Ohio law, and fraud; CertainTeed moved to partially dismiss counts as time-barred.
- The court denied the partial motion to dismiss, holding the warranty and OCSPA-based claims were not conclusively time-barred on the face of the complaint.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether breach-of-express-warranty claims (Counts 2–3) are time-barred under the 4-year UCC limitations period | Mayernik: breach for failure-to-repair/replacement occurred in 2019, so within 4 years | CertainTeed: breach accrued at delivery in 2013; claims are time-barred | Claims premised on failure to repair/replace did not accrue at delivery and survive dismissal (not time-barred) |
| Whether breach-of-warranty claims based on defective product are time-barred or governed by the discovery rule | Mayernik: alleges a defective product causing leaks discovered in 2018–2019 | CertainTeed: statute began in 2013 at delivery | Court declined to resolve on 12(b)(6); allegations do not conclusively show those claims are time-barred and discovery-rule application depends on full warranty language |
| Whether the MMWA claim is duplicative of the state-law warranty claim | Mayernik: MMWA claim derives from state-law warranty but adds fee-shifting and remedies | CertainTeed: MMWA count duplicates Ohio breach claim and should be dismissed | Court: MMWA claim is derivative but not duplicative; it survives because it affords additional remedies (attorneys' fees/costs) |
| Whether the OCSPA claim (Count 1) is time-barred under the 2-year limit | Mayernik: OCSPA violation is CertainTeed’s 2019 refusal to repair/replace, so timely | CertainTeed: violation occurred at purchase/installation in 2013, so barred | Court: complaint alleges OCSPA claim based on refusals/delays in 2019; that theory is timely and survives dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- Bassett v. Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n, 528 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2008) (Rule 12(b)(6) standard—construe complaint in plaintiff's favor)
- Directv, Inc. v. Treesh, 487 F.3d 471 (6th Cir. 2007) (same: standards for motion to dismiss)
- Tackett v. M&G Polymers, USA, LLC, 561 F.3d 478 (6th Cir. 2009) (pleading plausibility standard under Twombly/Iqbal)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (facial plausibility requirement for complaints)
- Allen v. Andersen Windows, Inc., 913 F. Supp. 2d 490 (S.D. Ohio 2012) (breach-to-repair-or-replace accrual analysis under UCC limitations)
- Voth v. Chrysler Motor Corp., 545 P.2d 371 (Kan. 1976) (discussion of discovery-rule exception to accrual for future-performance warranties)
- Schultz v. Gen. R.V. Ctr., 512 F.3d 754 (6th Cir. 2008) (MMWA is a vehicle to assert state-law warranty claims in federal court)
- Grover v. BMW of N. Am., LLC, 434 F. Supp. 3d 617 (N.D. Ohio 2020) (declining to decide applicability of discovery rule at motion-to-dismiss stage)
- Allis-Chalmers Credit Corp. v. Herbolt, 479 N.E.2d 293 (Ohio Ct. App. 1984) (repair-or-replace clauses treated as remedies for warranty breaches)