Thomas v. Winnebago Industries, Inc.
8:16-cv-00177
M.D. Fla.Jun 27, 2016Background
- Plaintiff Steven Thomas bought a motor home from a third party and alleges defects in alignment, jack system, electrical system, air conditioner, slides, and interior.
- Thomas sued Winnebago Industries and Freightliner under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (MMWA) for breach of a written warranty.
- Freightliner moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing (1) Thomas lacks privity with Freightliner and (2) the applicable Freightliner warranty does not cover the alleged defects.
- Thomas attached only a warranty summary and alleges Freightliner promised to repair defects and replace defective parts and then failed to do so.
- The court treated the complaint’s allegations as true on a motion to dismiss and evaluated whether the MMWA claim for breach of a written warranty requires privity and whether the pleading met Rule 8(a)(2) notice pleading standards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an MMWA claim for breach of a written warranty requires privity | Thomas contends MMWA creates an independent federal cause of action for written-warranty breaches and does not require privity | Freightliner argues MMWA borrows state law and Florida requires privity for express warranty claims | Court held MMWA’s text creates an independent cause of action for written warranties and does not require privity |
| Whether the complaint sufficiently alleges warranty coverage and breach | Thomas alleges Freightliner promised to repair/replace and breached by failing to fix listed defects | Freightliner contends the actual warranty that may apply does not cover Thomas’s complaints and summary attached is insufficient | Court held under Rule 8(a)(2) the complaint’s allegations (accepted as true) sufficiently state an MMWA written-warranty breach claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Toomer v. City Cab, 443 F.3d 1191 (10th Cir. 2006) (statutory interpretation: apply plain text when statute unambiguous)
- Sides v. Macon County Greyhound Park, Inc., 725 F.3d 1276 (11th Cir. 2013) (same principle on statutory clarity)
- Walsh v. Ford Motor Co., 588 F. Supp. 1513 (D.D.C. 1984) (MMWA limits implied-warranty claims to warranties arising under state law)
- In re McDonald’s French Fries Litig., 503 F. Supp. 2d 953 (N.D. Ill. 2007) (MMWA written-warranty claims may proceed without privity)
- Rentas v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 936 So. 2d 747 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006) (MMWA provides an independent federal cause of action for written warranties; privity not required)