Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, STATE UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES—D. Minn.: Warranty, consumer protection claims against child car seat manufacturer dismissed, (Jun 26, 2015)

By Edward L. Puzzo, J.D.

Warranty and Minnesota consumer protection claims against Evenflo, manufacturer of allegedly defective child car seats, were dismissed because the pleadings insufficiently alleged pecuniary injury and the plaintiff’s continued use of the product belied her claim of unmerchantablity, the federal district court in Minneapolis has ruled (Browe v. Evenflo Company, Inc., June 25, 2015, Montgomery, A.).

Plaintiff Sadie Browe brought a putative class action against Evenflo Company alleging that certain models of Evenflo child car seats were defective, in violation of Minnesota’s Unlawful Trade Practices Act (UTPA) and Consumer Fraud Act (CFA), and in breach of implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. Evenflo moved to dismiss.

Certain child car seats manufactured and distributed by Evenflo over a four-year period contained a seat harness buckle that was allegedly unreasonably difficult or impossible to unlatch during the ordinary consumer use. After complaints about the buckle were made to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Evenflo recalled the buckle, making purchasers eligible to receive a replacement buckle with installation instructions.

Express limited warranty. Evenflo argued that its express limited warranty—warranting the car seat against defects in material or workmanship for 90 days—disclaimed all implied warranties, including Browe’s merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose warranty claims. Browe argued that the limited warranty was outside of the pleadings and thus could not be considered on a motion to dismiss. The court stated that it had the discretion to determine whether to consider a matter outside of the pleadings on a motion to dismiss, but in this case, it would not consider the provisions of the express limited warranty in addressing the motion to dismiss, since the plaintiff did not raise the issue.

Implied warranty of merchantability. Plaintiff argued that a child car seat with an allegedly defective buckle was inherently unmerchantable and not fit for its ordinary purpose. She reported that the difficulty using the buckle caused her to move the car seat to her husband’s vehicle so that it would be used less. Evenflo responded that plaintiff’s continued use of the allegedly defective car seat belied her claim that the seat was unmerchantable.

The court explained that a buyer seeking to recover for breach of an implied warranty of merchantability must establish: (1) the existence of a warranty; (2) breach of that warranty; and (3) that the breach caused the alleged harm. The third element required an allegation of either personal or pecuniary injury.

In the view of the court, plaintiff’s pleadings did not meet the requirements of the third element. Her only allegation of physical injury was broken fingernails incurred when trying to unfasten the buckle, and she did not allege pecuniary injury, such as having to cut the nylon straps to free her child, or having to purchase a replacement seat. Indeed, plaintiff testified that she continued to use the allegedly defective car seat. The court found that plaintiff’s implied warranty of merchantability claim failed as a matter of law because she failed to allege that she suffered an injury causally related to the alleged defect. The court commented: “It is a difficult proposition to accept that the lead plaintiff in a products liability lawsuit seeking class action status can credibly pursue liability while continuing to use the very same product the lawsuit claims is dangerously defective and warrants a pecuniary remedy.”

Implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose. A buyer seeking to recover for breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose requires proof that (1) the seller had reason to know of the buyer’s particular purpose; (2) the seller had reason to know that the buyer was relying of the seller’s skill or judgment to furnish appropriate goods; and (3) the buyer’s actual reliance, the court explained.

Here, the complaint did not allege that the plaintiff attempted to use the car seat in any manner not ordinary or normal for the product, nor did she allege that she communicated to Evenflo an intended particular purpose. Thus her claim for breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose failed, the court ruled.

Magnuson-Moss Warranty. The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (MMWA) does not impose any new warranty obligations, the court explained. It merely provides a federal cause of action for state law express and implied warranty claims. Since the requisite predicate acts are lacking, as discussed above, the MMWA claim was also dismissed.

Minnesota UTPA and CFA. Plaintiff alleged that Evenflo’s statements such as “makes getting your child in and out a breeze” violated Minnesota’s UTPA by misrepresenting the quality of the car seat and representing that the seats had uses and benefits that they did not have, and violated Minnesota’s CFA by warranting their product with false statements regarding the functionality of the car seat. The court ruled that the statements in question were mere puffery and not actionable because they were not specific, measurable claims and could not be reasonably interpreted as objective fact.

The case is Civil Action No. 14-4690 ADM/JJK.

Attorneys: Kristen G. Marttila (Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP) for Sadie Browe. Cortney G. Sylvester (Nilan Johnson Lewis PA) for Evenflo Company, Inc.

Companies: Evenflo Company, Inc.

Cases: StateUnfairTradePractices Advertising MinnesotaNews