Varner v. Dometic Corporation, 1:16-cv-22482

Background

Plaintiffs sued Dometic alleging a uniform design defect in the boiler tube assemblies of its RV refrigerators that causes stress cracking, corrosion, leaks, and fire risk.
Court granted summary judgment dismissing the case for lack of standing because plaintiffs failed to prove a defect manifest in all units at sale and failed to prove economic harm.
Plaintiffs moved for reconsideration, arguing the court mischaracterized their theory (design defect vs. failure mode) and that the defect exists in all units at purchase.
Plaintiffs primarily relied on expert Dr. Paul Eason, whose report described a “common failure mode” (breach of boiler tube) and identified multiple mechanisms that could cause breaches; his deposition acknowledged not all units will experience the failure.
Plaintiffs offered limited additional evidence (a 2007 engineer letter and other materials) but no clear proof that a uniform design defect was manifest at time of sale or that plaintiffs suffered a diminution in value/overpayment.
The court denied reconsideration, finding plaintiffs rehashed prior arguments, failed to show a defect manifest at sale, and failed to show an economic injury required for Article III standing.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether plaintiffs proved a uniform design defect manifest at time of sale	Dometic’s boiler tube assembly design (thin carbon steel, ammonia/water, weld geometry, ineffective inhibitor) is a latent defect present in all units on purchase	Plaintiffs’ evidence shows only a common failure mode that may arise from varied manufacturing/use factors, not a uniform defect at sale	Court: Plaintiffs failed to prove a defect manifest in all units at sale; expert admitted not all units will fail
Whether plaintiffs established injury in fact (economic harm)	Plaintiffs contend they paid more/received diminished value because defect was undisclosed and set processes in motion that tend to cause failure	Dometic contends plaintiffs offered no evidence of overpayment, diminished value, or actual economic loss caused by the alleged defect	Court: Plaintiffs failed to substantiate any economic harm; standing not met
Whether the court mischaracterized the alleged defect (design vs. failure mode)	Plaintiffs claim the court relied on a flawed premise by treating stress cracking/corrosion as the defect rather than the boiler tube design	Dometic points to plaintiffs’ own expert who interchanged “defect” and “failure mode” and admitted multiple mechanisms cause breaches	Court: No mischaracterization; record shows expert tied defect to both design and manufacturing and acknowledged not all units are defective at sale
Whether reconsideration is warranted based on additional evidence or law	Plaintiffs cite In re Zurn and some additional documents to show parallels and new support	Dometic argues plaintiffs merely rehash prior arguments and offer no new controlling law or admissible evidence sufficient to change result	Court: Reconsideration denied — plaintiffs didn’t present new controlling law/facts or show manifest injustice

Key Cases Cited

Chapman v. AI Transp., 229 F.3d 1012 (11th Cir.) (district court’s denial or grant of reconsideration reviewed for abuse of discretion)
In re Zurn Pex Plumbing Prods. Liab. Litig., 644 F.3d 604 (8th Cir.) (distinguishing cases where plaintiffs proved defects already manifest in all units)
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (injury-in-fact is an essential element of Article III standing)
United States v. Dicter, 198 F.3d 1284 (11th Cir.) (failure to raise an argument in initial brief waives it)