July 9, 2020

Volume X, Number 191

July 09, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

July 08, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

July 07, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

July 06, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

Class Counsel Say "Rats!" to California Court's Rejection of Design-Based Warranty Claims

Following last month's dismissal in Preston v. American Honda Motor Company, No. 18-cv-00038 (C.D. Cal. May 24, 2018), a California federal judge on Monday dismissed yet another putative class action, Heber v. Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A., Inc., No. 16-cv-01525 (C.D. Cal. June 11, 2018), against an automaker alleging that class vehicles were sold with soy-coated electrical wires that enticed rats to gnaw through them—rendering the vehicles inoperable.

In rejecting plaintiffs' unconventional claim, Judge Andrew J. Guilford reinforced two important points that present obstacles to putative automotive class actions. First, express warranties do not apply to design defects. Second, courts are increasingly reluctant to hold automakers accountable under the implied warranty of merchantability for damage caused by external forces.

The plaintiffs in Heber alleged that Toyota failed to disclose to consumers that it made a production line switch to soy-coated wires, increasing the likelihood that the class vehicles would incur rodent-inflicted damage. Bringing claims for breach of express and implied warranty and omissions-based fraud claims, the plaintiffs contended that Toyota knew that the wiring might draw rodents because it received several complaints of such damage from consumers and insurance companies.

In dismissing plaintiffs' fourth amended complaint with prejudice, Judge Guilford held that plaintiffs' express warranty claims failed because they alleged the existence of a design defect, which Toyota's express warranties do not cover. The court rejected the plaintiffs' argument that the use of soy wiring was itself a defect in material under Toyota's express warranty because it attracts rodents. The court noted that when a complaint questions the choice to use a material "across the board" and does not claim "any individual wire was anomalously defective," such a claim implies a design defect.

The court also declined to "stretch" the implied warranty of merchantability to include a promise that no external actor (in this case, rats) will later harm the plaintiffs' vehicles. Regarding omissions-based fraud claims, the court held that plaintiffs missed the mark and failed to meet Rule 9(b)'s pleading standard because they did not state with particularity what repairs were required or how much those repairs cost.

Although the court clearly was not receptive to the plaintiffs' somewhat novel allegations, Heber further solidifies the clear trend in federal authority asserting that automotive express warranties for material and workmanship do not cover design defects. It also highlights the limits of an automaker's responsibility for latent defects under the implied warranty of merchantability. However, the exact contours of when a defect's manifestation is deemed to have been caused by external or internal forces remains to be seen and will likely be fertile ground for motion practice in the near future.

Copyright © by Ballard Spahr LLPNational Law Review, Volume VIII, Number 165


About this Author

Neal Walters, Products Liability, New Jersey, Attorney, Lawyer, Ballard Spahr, Law Firm

Neal Walters is the Practice Leader of Ballard Spahr's Product Liability and Mass Tort Group, and a member of the firm's Manufacturing and Retail Industry Groups. Mr. Walters has a diverse trial and litigation practice focused on protecting product companies, as well as clients involved in technical matters, against a broad range of risks. As counsel for several consumer product manufacturers, he has defended and coordinated product liability and consumer claims, including class actions, through trial in jurisdictions across the country. He also counsels companies on contractual,...

Casey G Watkins, Product Liability Attorney, Class Action, Litigation, New Jersey, Ballard Spahr Law FIrm

Casey G. Watkins is an associate in the Litigation Department and Product Liability and Mass Tort Group. Mr. Watkins advises clients on complex regulatory and liability issues, class-action suits, and matters regarding consumer products and manufacturing. Mr. Watkins litigates on behalf of clients in the automotive, consumer products, energy, and financial industries.

Prior to attending law school, Mr. Watkins gained experience drafting technical specifications and drawings in the engineering industry. He also has experience as a certified automotive parts professional with significant knowledge of a wide range of vehicle component systems.