58 F.4th 392
8th Cir.2023Background
- GM installed Generation IV 5.3L V8 (Vortec 5300 LC9) engines in certain 2010–2014 GMC/Chevrolet trucks and SUVs (the affected vehicles).
- Plaintiffs Tucker and Riddell bought new GM trucks in Missouri (2012–2013) and later experienced excessive oil consumption and alleged engine damage ~25,000–75,000 miles after purchase.
- Plaintiffs allege GM knew of the oil-consumption defect as early as 2008, concealed it from buyers, and that disclosure would have affected their purchase decisions or price paid.
- They sued asserting multiple claims, including a Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (MMPA) omission claim; the district court dismissed the MMPA claim, reasoning GM’s marketing statements were mere puffery.
- The Eighth Circuit reviewed de novo and held Plaintiffs plausibly pleaded an MMPA omission claim: puffery in advertising does not defeat an omissions-based MMPA claim and an actionable affirmative statement is not required.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether alleged marketing “puffery” defeats an MMPA omission claim | Tucker: Puffery in ads does not negate that GM omitted a material defect; ads only show purchasers were reasonable consumers | GM: Advertising was mere puffery, so cannot supply a basis for MMPA fraud/omission claim | The court: Puffery does not defeat an omission claim where plaintiffs plausibly allege non‑disclosure of a material latent defect; ads are relevant to show reasonable consumer, not the omission element |
| Whether an MMPA omission claim must be tied to an affirmative actionable statement or satisfy Rule 9(b) at pleading stage | Tucker: MMPA expressly covers concealment/omission; no affirmative statement required to state a claim | GM: Omission claims must be linked to actionable statements and pleaded with particularity under Rule 9(b) | The court: Statute’s plain text covers omissions without an affirmative statement; the complaint plausibly alleges material omission and GM’s knowledge; the court did not decide Rule 9(b) particularity at dismissal stage |
Key Cases Cited
- Vitello v. Natrol, LLC, 50 F.4th 689 (8th Cir. 2022) (elements of an MMPA claim)
- Kuhns v. Scottrade, Inc., 868 F.3d 711 (8th Cir. 2017) (pleading plausibility standard)
- Hess v. Chase Manhattan Bank, USA, N.A., 220 S.W.3d 758 (Mo. banc 2007) (MMPA omission requires less proof than common-law fraud; materiality standard)
- Plubell v. Merck & Co., 289 S.W.3d 707 (Mo. App. 2009) (ascertainable loss from nondisclosure can satisfy MMPA)
- Owen v. Gen. Motors Corp., 533 F.3d 913 (8th Cir. 2008) (MMPA omission claims may survive motion to dismiss when complaint identifies omitted information)
- Am. Italian Pasta Co. v. New World Pasta Co., 371 F.3d 387 (8th Cir. 2004) (distinguishing puffery from actionable statements)