52 F. Supp. 3d 1223
S.D. Fla.2014Background
- Plaintiff Angela Sanchez-Knutson purchased a new 2013 Ford Explorer and repeatedly reported an exhaust odor in the passenger compartment; dealer service visits (multiple dates 2012–2014) documented the odor and performed TSB 12-12-4 without resolving the problem.
- Plaintiff alleges the Explorer (and 2011–2013 model years generally) were designed/manufactured so that exhaust and carbon monoxide could enter the cabin via defective air extractors, drain valves, seams, and related parts; Ford knew or should have known of the condition.
- Plaintiff alleges she was reassured by dealer representatives that no carbon monoxide hazard existed and continued to operate the vehicle until April 2014 when she learned lethal quantities could enter the cabin and stopped driving the vehicle.
- Ford issued TSB 12-12-4 prescribing multiple part replacements/repairs (including a dual-rate air extractor and seam sealer) but the TSB did not identify a single definitive fix and allegedly failed to prevent gas infiltration; Plaintiff alleges the TSB modifications (including an altered extractor) were ineffective.
- Procedural posture: Plaintiff sued asserting four claims—(I) Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (MMWA); (II) FDUTPA; (III) breach of express warranty; (IV) breach of implied warranty. Ford moved to dismiss; the court DENIED the motion in full and ordered Ford to answer.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of express warranty (Fla. Stat. § 672.313) | Sanchez-Knutson: Ford’s written warranty and dealer dealings created express warranties covering defects; Ford failed to repair/replace defective parts. | Ford: Claim is a design-defect claim excluded from warranty coverage; relied on Warranty Guide to show exclusion. | Denied dismissal. Court held the Warranty Guide is central and admissible; its language does not exclude design defects and ambiguities are construed against Ford. |
| Breach of implied warranty / privity (Fla. UCC) | Plaintiff: Dealers are Ford’s agents and end purchasers are intended beneficiaries; third-party beneficiary allegations suffice to avoid strict privity bar. | Ford: Mesa/Kramer preclude implied-warranty recovery absent privity; Plaintiff bought from dealer, not Ford. | Denied dismissal. Court found Mesa persuasive but accepted Plaintiff’s third-party beneficiary theory at pleading stage; factual development required. |
| MMWA exhaustion (15 U.S.C. §2310) | Plaintiff: Allegations of warranty claims suffice; exhaustion of informal dispute resolution (BBB AUTO LINE) is an affirmative defense for Ford to plead. | Ford: Plaintiff must allege exhaustion of the warranty’s incorporated dispute program before suing under MMWA. | Denied dismissal. Court treated exhaustion as an affirmative defense (Jones v. Bock logic) and declined to require pleading of participation at this stage; futility and exhaustion may be addressed later. |
| FDUTPA (Fla. Stat. §501.201) — predicate & pleading sufficiency | Plaintiff: Ford failed to disclose safety/CO defects, made misrepresentations, and engaged in deceptive practices; claims sufficiently pled without Rule 9(b) particularity. | Ford: TREAD/Safety Act reporting cannot be FDUTPA predicate; no private right under TREAD; invokes primary jurisdiction (NHTSA) and attacks pleading as boilerplate/shotgun. | Denied dismissal. Court found FDUTPA allegations sufficiently pled, rejected primary jurisdiction at this stage, and declined to require Rule 9(b) particularity for FDUTPA. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must raise claim above speculative level)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (courts need not accept legal conclusions; only well-pleaded factual allegations get assumption of truth)
- Day v. Taylor, 400 F.3d 1272 (11th Cir. 2005) (court may consider documents central to claim on 12(b)(6) without converting to summary judgment)
- Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007) (exhaustion provisions that are silent on pleading vs. defense are ordinarily affirmative defenses)
- Mesa v. BMW of N. Am., 904 So.2d 450 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (under Florida law, implied-warranty economic-loss recovery is barred absent privity)
- Ocana v. Ford Motor Co., 992 So.2d 319 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (manufacturer’s liability for breach of express warranty measured by warranty terms)