Schechner v. Whirlpool Corp.
237 F. Supp. 3d 601
E.D. Mich.2017Background
- Ten plaintiffs from six states sued Whirlpool over its AquaLift oven self-clean technology, asserting 12 claims including MMWA (written and implied warranty), UCC express and implied warranty, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and multiple state consumer-protection statutes.
- Plaintiffs bought ovens from third-party retailers (not directly from Whirlpool) and alleged AquaLift failed to perform as advertised (e.g., did not self-clean in the promised time and often required multiple cycles).
- Whirlpool moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), arguing (inter alia) lack of privity, failure to give timely pre-suit notice for UCC warranty claims, MMWA pleading defects, statute-of-limitations bars, and state-law barriers to unjust enrichment and consumer claims.
- The complaint contains mixed allegations suggesting design defect and some references to materials/workmanship, varied dates of discovery and notice among plaintiffs, and limited or no allegations that many plaintiffs sought warranty service within Whirlpool’s one-year warranty period.
- The court evaluated privity, notice, MMWA statutory elements (affirmation-of-fact and temporal specificity), and state-law requirements (ascertainable loss, statute of limitations, and unjust-enrichment prerequisites) and granted the motion in part and denied it in part.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract / privity | Plaintiffs: are intended beneficiaries of Whirlpool–retailer contracts | Whirlpool: plaintiffs bought from retailers, no direct contract or intended-beneficiary showing | Dismissed with prejudice for all plaintiffs (no privity alleged) |
| UCC express/implied warranty — pre-suit notice | Plaintiffs: class demand letter and other consumer complaints put Whirlpool on notice | Whirlpool: individual notice required within a reasonable time under state UCC law | Express/implied UCC claims dismissed without prejudice for many plaintiffs (specific plaintiffs listed) for lack of timely notice |
| UCC warranty — privity exception via advertising | Plaintiffs: Whirlpool’s direct advertising to consumers creates privity/exception | Whirlpool: state law (FL, ID) requires privity; retail middlemen can be learned intermediaries | For plaintiffs who bought from knowledgeable retailers (e.g., Schechner), privity exception denied; implied warranty claims dismissed without prejudice for lack of privity |
| MMWA written warranty — limited one-year warranty vs. design defect | Plaintiffs: complaint alleges defects (material or workmanship) and some sought service within warranty; ads also create written affirmations | Whirlpool: one-year warranty covers only materials/workmanship (not design); ads aren’t promises of defect-free performance or specified-duration warranties | MMWA claims alleging breach of one-year warranty dismissed without prejudice for plaintiffs who didn’t request service in warranty period; MMWA written-warranty claims based on advertisements dismissed with prejudice (ads not MMWA written warranties) |
| MMWA implied warranty | Plaintiffs: parallel to state-law implied warranty claims | Whirlpool: state implied-warranty defects (notice/privity) defeat federal MMWA implied claim | MMWA implied warranty claims dismissed without prejudice for the same reasons as state UCC implied warranty rulings |
| Unjust enrichment | Plaintiffs: may plead unjust enrichment alternatively | Whirlpool: some states require direct benefit or bar unjust enrichment when adequate legal remedy exists | Unjust-enrichment claims dismissed with prejudice for several plaintiffs (no direct benefit); claims of Simmons and the Thornes survive (denied dismissal) |
| State consumer-protection claims (FDUTPA, NJCFA, ACFA, ICFA) — ascertainable loss and timeliness | Plaintiffs: alleged overpayment/diminished value and pled discovery dates; some discovery dates are factual questions | Whirlpool: failure to plead measurable/ascertainable loss and some claims time-barred by state statutes | FDUTPA claims (Schechner, Barnes) survive; NJCFA (Miljenovic) survives; Arizona and Idaho consumer claims for certain plaintiffs dismissed without prejudice as time-barred |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard: courts need not accept legal conclusions)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Bassett v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 528 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2008) (Rule 12(b)(6) standard construing allegations favorably to plaintiff)
- Hensley Mfg. v. ProPride, Inc., 579 F.3d 603 (6th Cir. 2009) (plausibility and rise-above-speculative pleading standard)
- In re Toyota Motor Corp. Unintended Acceleration Mktg., Sales Practices, & Prod. Liab. Litig., 754 F.Supp.2d 1145 (C.D. Cal. 2010) (design defects not covered by a materials/workmanship limited warranty)
- Thiedemann v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, 872 A.2d 783 (N.J. 2005) (ascertainable loss under New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act is measurable at pleading stage)