McCabe v. Daimler AG, 160 F. Supp. 3d 1337

Putative multi-state class action alleging fuel-system defects (2003–09 W211 E‑Class) causing gasoline odors/leaks; NHTSA opened a 2012 investigation and MBUSA later extended limited warranty for certain fuel‑tank components.
Plaintiffs: McCabe and Herring (Georgia), Stone (Texas), Vo (Virginia) — all bought used E‑Class vehicles; assorted repairs/replacements occurred post‑purchase; some purchases from dealers, some from private sellers.
After discovery, remaining claims were common‑law fraudulent concealment (all four plaintiffs) and Vo’s Virginia Consumer Protection Act (VCPA) claim.
Defendants moved for summary judgment arguing (inter alia) no duty to disclose to these purchasers, lack of proximate causation and lack of reliance; court applied summary‑judgment standards to evidence.
Court found no legal duty to disclose as a matter of law to the remote sellers/purchasers under Georgia, Texas, and Virginia law and granted summary judgment for defendants; Vo’s VCPA claim likewise failed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether defendant owed a duty to disclose fuel‑system defect to Georgia purchasers (McCabe, Herring)	Rivers and "particular circumstances" can create duty to disclose outside fiduciary relationship	No agency/relationship with dealers or direct contact with purchasers; no precedent imposing duty here	No duty as matter of law; fraudulent concealment claims dismissed for McCabe and Herring
Whether defendant owed a duty to disclose to Texas purchaser (Stone)	Duty can arise absent fiduciary relationship where purchaser lacks equal opportunity to discover defect	No fiduciary relation, no representations to Stone (private sale), no recognized Texas duty here	No duty as matter of law; Stone’s fraud by nondisclosure claim dismissed
Whether defendant owed a duty to disclose to Virginia purchaser (Vo)	Virginia cases permit duties where seller has superior knowledge or where remote seller made representations that induce reliance	Defendants were remote sellers with no affirmative misrepresentation to Vo and no privity; omission claims require duty	No duty as matter of law for omission by remote seller; Vo’s fraudulent concealment claim dismissed
Whether Vo’s VCPA claim (based on omission) survives	VCPA prohibits deceptive acts; omission theory equates to fraud under Virginia law	VCPA omission claim requires same duty to disclose as common‑law fraud; no duty here	VCPA claim fails for same reason as fraud claim; summary judgment for defendants

Abraham v. Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 795 F.2d 238 (2d Cir. 1986) (knowledge of part failure after warranty does not render time/mileage limits unconscionable)
Rivers v. BMW of N. Am., Inc., 214 Ga. App. 880 (Ga. Ct. App. 1994) (latent defects concealed by affirmative denial may be actionable; fact‑specific disclosure analysis)
Bradford v. Vento, 48 S.W.3d 749 (Tex. 2001) (fraud by nondisclosure requires a duty to disclose; duty arises in limited situations)
Nissan Motor Co. v. Armstrong, 145 S.W.3d 131 (Tex. 2004) (no duty by remote manufacturer to subsequent purchaser in private sale)
Mortarino v. Consultant Engineering Servs., 467 S.E.2d 778 (Va. 1996) (remote seller fraud requires knowledge or reason to know plaintiff would rely on misrepresentation)
Bank of Montreal v. Signet Bank, 193 F.3d 818 (4th Cir. 1999) (failure to disclose not actionable absent duty; duty may arise where one party has superior knowledge and the other assumes fact does not exist)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment burden shifts to nonmoving party to show genuine dispute)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (court must view evidence in light most favorable to nonmoving party)
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment appropriate where record could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for nonmoving party)