Wright v. Corning
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29042
W.D. Pa.2011Background
- Wright and West filed a putative class action against Owens Corning alleging warranty and product-liability claims related to shingles installed years earlier (1998–1999 for Wright; 2005 for West).
- Wright believed the Oakridge shingles carried a 40-year, non-prorated warranty; she did not receive a warranty registration card.
- West submitted a warranty claim in 2009 and Owens Corning denied the claim, attributing cracking to deck movement.
- Owens Corning filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2000; a sixth amended plan was confirmed in 2006, with a general discharge of pre-confirmation claims.
- The reorganization plan contained provisions authorizing post-confirmation fulfillment of pre-petition/pre-confirmation warranty claims, and the bankruptcy notice was published in major national and regional outlets.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Grossman’s new claim-creation rule applies retroactively | Wright argued Grossman’s rule applies and pre-petition claims exist | Owens Corning argued Grossman’s rule should not retroactively apply | Retroactive application required; claims arose pre-petition/pre-confirmation under Grossman’s test |
| Whether Wright’s and West’s claims existed pre-petition or pre-confirmation | Claims premised on pre-petition/premarket conduct; pre-petition relationship with product | Claims arose post-petition or post-confirmation under Frenville framework | Wright’s claims pre-petition; West’s claims pre-confirmation; both discharged by plan |
| Whether the published notice satisfied due process for unknown creditors | Unknown creditors were not adequately noticed | Publication notice in NYT, WSJ, USA Today, regional papers was sufficient | Publication notice satisfied due process for unknown creditors; no need for additional searches |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Frenville Co., 744 F.2d 332 (3d Cir.1984) (accrual-based automatic-stay analysis for pre/post-petition acts)
- Grossman’s, 607 F.3d 114 (3d Cir.2010) (overruled Frenville; established pre-petition claim arising from pre-petition exposure/test; retroactive rule)
- Piper Aircraft Corp., 58 F.3d 1573 (11th Cir.1995) (pre-petition relationship test guiding claim existence)
- In re Rodriguez, 629 F.3d 136 (3d Cir.2010) (applied Grossman’s framework to mortgage escrow claims; retroactive application)
- Chemetron Corp. v. Jones, 72 F.3d 341 (3d Cir.1995) (pre-confirmation discharge generally discharges pre-confirmation claims)
- Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (1950) (due-process notice standard for unknown creditors)
- Harper v. Virginia Dept. of Taxation, 509 U.S. 86 (1993) (retroactivity rule applying new federal-law rule to cases not final)
- Epstein v. Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors (In re Piper Aircraft Corp.), 58 F.3d 1573 (11th Cir.1995) (source for pre-petition relationship concept)