Opinion ID: 50921
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Recovery for Unmanifested Vehicle Defects

Text: Plaintiffs additionally failed to demonstrate predominance because they did not address variations in state law regarding recovery for an unmanifested product defect. The vast majority of the members of this class never experienced any manifestation of the alleged defect.7 But many jurisdictions do not permit the recovery of economic loss in vehicle defect cases where the vehicle has performed satisfactorily and has never manifested the 7 GM’s voluntary recall letter indicated that there were 306 reports of inadvertent deployment out of approximately 224,000 DeVilles. The class specifically excludes individuals who sustained bodily injury or death resulting from the inadvertent deployment of their air bags. It is conceivable that some individuals experienced inadvertent deployment but were not physically injured as a result. Therefore, they remain eligible for class membership. -26- alleged defect. See, e.g., Briehl v. Gen. Motors Corp., 172 F.3d 623, 627-28 (8th Cir. 1999) (collecting cases and dismissing claims brought under any theory for allegedly defective anti-lock braking systems where plaintiffs’ brakes never malfunctioned or failed). Plaintiffs attempt to sidestep this glaring obstacle by distinguishing their claim as one brought under a contract theory (for breach of warranty) instead of products liability. This maneuver does not escape the reality that some jurisdictions require that the alleged defect manifest itself regardless of whether the claim is brought under contract or tort. For example, in Breihl, the plaintiffs alleged defective anti-lock braking systems and sought recovery for overpayment of their vehicles. The Eighth Circuit held that the plaintiffs had no cognizable claims for breach of express and implied warranties——or under any other theory——where the braking systems had never malfunctioned or failed. 172 F.3d at 628 (citing to decisions under New York, Texas, and South Carolina law). Likewise, the Fourth Circuit, looking specifically at recovery of diminished resale value, held that there is no recovery for breach of implied warranties under South Carolina law where a vehicle had never manifested the alleged defect. Carlson v. Gen. Motors Corp., 883 F.2d 287, 297 (4th Cir. 1989). Other jurisdictions have similarly held that actual manifestation of a vehicle defect is a prerequisite to recovery under warranty -27- theories. See In re Air Bag Prods. Liab. Lit., 7 F. Supp. 2d 792, 805 (E.D. La. 1998) (dismissing warranty claim based on defective air bags brought under Texas law where plaintiffs never alleged that the air bags functioned improperly); Weaver v. Chrysler Corp., 172 F.R.D. 96, 100 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) (dismissing warranty claim based on defective integrated child safety seats brought under New York law where plaintiff had experienced no problem with the child seat in his vehicle); Yost v. Gen. Motors Corp., 651 F. Supp. 656, 658 (D.N.J. 1986) (dismissing claim for breach of implied warranty of merchantability brought under New Jersey law where plaintiff did not allege any actual mechanical difficulties with his vehicle); Feinstein v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 535 F. Supp. 595, 603 (S.D.N.Y. 1982) (dismissing warranty claims based on defective tires brought under New York law where defect never manifested); Am. Suzuki Motor Corp. v. Superior Court, 44 Cal. Rptr. 2d 526, 531 (Cal. Ct. App. 1995) (dismissing warranty claim brought under California law where defect never manifested). Yet it is not clear that the actual manifestation of a vehicle defect is a common prerequisite for recovery under warranty law in all jurisdictions. See In re Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 155 F. Supp. 2d 1069, 1099-1101 (S.D. Ind. 2001) (holding that manifestation of vehicle defect is not required under Tennessee and Michigan law for recovery under express and implied warranty theories), rev’d on other grounds, -28- 288 F.3d 1012 (7th Cir. 2002); see also In re Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 288 F.3d 1012, 1017 (7th Cir. 2002) (contemplating that it is not clear whether bringing a defectbased claim under contract law rather than tort avoids the requirement that the product defect manifest itself but commenting that “most states would not entertain” recovery under a warranty theory where plaintiffs’ product had not failed). Such variations, which are likely to preclude recovery for some class members, further show that plaintiffs failed to carry their burden of showing that common issues of law predominate.