Third Circuit refuses to reinstate design defect case.
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals recently issued an important opinion whereby it choose not to reinstate a class action suit in which the Ford Motor Company was accused of purposefully suppressing information related to a defective fuel tank. In Coba v. Ford Motor Company, the Appellate Division upheld Ford's summary judgment from the District Court of New Jersey. The matter involves customer complaints as to fuel tanks of Ford's F-Series, beginning in 2001. After investigating the complaints, Ford believed that high concentrations of biodiesel, in certain geographic regions, were resulting in delamination of the tanks. Ford constructed, in 2007, an improved coating for the fuel tank, which was supposed to decrease the instances of delamination. Despite decreased claims, delamination continued to exist in the tanks. Within a few years, Ford determined that the complaints of delamination were caused, not be biodiesel, but rather the presence of acids from gas stations near a Ford dealer. Many of the complaints, related to the delamination, were from vehicles purchased from that dealer.
The Appellant bought two Ford F-350s in 2006 for his business. Within three years, the trucks were showing signs of delamination, and the Appellant had the tanks replaced by Ford at no charge. Despite the presence of the new and improved tanks, the Appellants' trucks continued to exhibit signs of delamination. This occurred after the expiration of their respective warranties. The Appellant filed a class-action products liability suit, claiming a breach of Ford's warranty, along with a breach of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, and finally Ford's breach of duty to act in good faith and deal fairly. As to the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, the Appellant argued that Ford purposefully withheld to its customers information as to the defects.
The Third Circuit affirmed the District Court's granting of Ford's Summary Judgment Motion. It affirmed that the warranty, which addressed defects in "materials or workmanship," did not apply to design defects, the crux of the Appellant's claim. This also precluded the Appellant's claim for breach of good faith and fair dealing. Finally, the Third Circuit concurred, "that the record evidence of Ford’s knowledge about the defect does not create a triable issue" pursuant to the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act.
Contact us to discuss the ramifications of this decision.