Opinion ID: 1027586
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: .Count One.(Breach of Express Warranties)

Text: To state a claim for breach of express warranty under Maryland law, a plaintiff must allege 1) a warranty existed; 2) the product did not conform to the warranty; and 3) the breach proximately caused the injury or damage. SpinCycle, Inc. v. Burcin Kalender, 186 F.Supp.2d 585, 589 (D.Md.2002) (citations omitted).
The district court ruled correctly in dismissing the claims against Honda for breach of express warranty. Robinson's claim fails to allege that his minivan did not conform to the warranty. By its own terms, the warranty clearly, unambiguously, and repeatedly excludes tires from the warranty coverage. In the A Quick Reference to Warranty Coverages section at the beginning of the warranty booklet, under the heading New Vehicle Limited Warranty, the text states, Every new Honda is covered, except for tires, for 3 years or 36,000 miles. The tires are warranted separately. J.A. 48. In the subsequent, expanded description of the New Vehicle Limited Warranty, the booklet states that This New Vehicle Limited Warranty Does Not Cover: Emissions control systems, Accessories, Batteries, or Tires. (They have their own warranties). J.A. 53. Farther along, an entire page in the warranty booklet is devoted to Tires. This section explains that [t]he tires that come as original equipment on your new Honda are warranted by their manufacturer.. . . A separate warranty statement for the tires is in the glove box. J.A. 70. This section also makes clear that a local representative of the tire's manufacturernot the Honda dealerwill be responsible for providing warranty service. Id. Robinson does not dispute these terms in the warranty booklet. Instead, he points to other language in the warranty booklet which declares that [b]y keeping your Honda in top condition, you will be rewarded with years of trouble-free service at the lowest operating cost. The keys to keeping your Honda in top condition are proper operation and regular maintenance. J.A. 79. Since Robinson alleges that he had all of the recommended maintenance performed by his Honda dealer, he asserts that the need to replace the tires after 18 months and 18,000 miles breaches Honda's express promise that he would be rewarded with years of trouble free service at the lowest operating cost. However, even assuming that this phrase is not mere puffery, because the warranty expressly and repeatedly excludes tires from coverage, applying this provision to the tires is inconsistent with the specific terms of the warranty. In addition, lowest operating cost is not the same as no operating cost, and the purpose of the warranty section at issue here is to encourage owners to take care of their minivans to minimize future maintenance expenses. The phrase lowest operating cost implies that there will be some operating cost, even for a minivan that is kept in top condition. J.A. 79. Despite Robinson's alleged tire expenses, his well-maintained van most likely has the lowest operating cost when compared to other Honda Odyssey Touring model minivans that were not regularly serviced.
The district court also ruled correctly in dismissing the breach of express warranty claim against Michelin. There is no promise in the Michelin warranty that the tread on the tires will last for a definite period of time or endure a certain number of miles driven. Instead, the warranty covers the tires against defects in workmanship and materials, for the life of the original usable tread or 6 years from the date of purchase, whichever comes first. J.A. 122A. This language makes clear that the warranty will expire with the tread, and thus tread wear cannot be covered by the warranty. This view of the warranty is reinforced by the section entitled HOW REPLACEMENT CHARGES ARE CALCULATED. J.A. 122B. Under the warranty, if a tire becomes unserviceable due to a workmanship or materials condition or a road hazard injury during the first 24 months of service or before 50% of the tread is worn, whichever occurs first, Michelin will furnish [a new tire] at NO CHARGE. Id. If more than 50% of the tread is worn but the tire is otherwise within the six year warranty period, Michelin will pay a pro rata share of the replacement cost based on the percentage of the tread remaining. Id. Both of these replacement provisions indicate that the life of the warranty is governed by the life of the tread, rather than the life of the tread being guaranteed by the warranty. Nevertheless, Robinson argues that because the warranty expressly excludes coverage for tires and support rings which become unrepairable and/or unserviceable due to . . . [u]neven or rapid wear which results from mechanical irregularity in the vehicle such as wheel misalignment, (a measured tread difference of 2/32 nds of an inch or more across the tread of the same tire), the warranty must by implication cover rapid tread wear which does not result from mechanical irregularities. Otherwise, Robinson argues, this exclusion would be superfluous and therefore meaningless. In contrast, Michelin argues that interpreting this disclaimer as impliedly extending warranty coverage to other types of rapid tread wear would contradict and render superfluous the more important and more numerous portions of the warranty which limit coverage to the life of the tread. After reviewing all of these provisions, the district court concluded that [t]here is no tread wear guarantee whatsoever in this warranty. J.A. 226. The court held that tread wear was not a defect in workmanship and materials that would be covered by the warranty but was instead a natural and expected consequence of tire ownership. J.A. 226-27. Accordingly, the court dismissed Robinson's claim. We agree. As Michelin points out, any negative inference of tread wear coverage created by the exclusion in the warranty disappears if the exclusion is interpreted to apply primarily to uneven as opposed to uniformly rapid tread wear. This interpretation is supported by the warranty's definition of uneven or rapid wear in the same clause as a measured tread difference of 2/32 nds of an inch or more across the tread of the same tire. J.A. 122B. More importantlyand regardless of the interpretation of uneven or rapid wear there can be no negative inference of warranty coverage when the other provisions of the warranty unambiguously limit coverage to the life of the tread. Robinson's efforts to manufacture a promise concerning tread wear out of a warranty provision plainly intended to limit warranty coverage are unavailing. Because there was no tread wear guarantee in the Michelin warranty, Robinson's allegations of premature tire wear fail to state a claim for breach of express warranty. [3]