Foley Hoag LLP publishes this quarterly Update concerning developments in Product Liability and related law of interest to product manufacturers and sellers.
Included In This Update:
- Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Holds Motor Vehicles’ Failure to Comply with Applicable Safety Regulations Constitutes Injury For Purposes of Unfair or Deceptive Practices Statute Even Where Plaintiffs Suffer No Physical Injury or Financial Loss; Also Adopts Heightened Pleading Standards
- Massachusetts Federal District Court Remands Asbestos Failure-to-Warn Claims to State Court Where Affidavits Failed to Demonstrate Colorable Federal Contractor Defense
- Massachusetts Federal District Court Upholds Removal of Asbestos Failure-to-Warn Claims to Federal Court Under Federal Officer Removal Statute Because Defendant Established Colorable Military Contractor Defense
- Massachusetts Federal District Court in Tractor Back-Over Case Grants Summary Judgment Against Failure-to-Warn Claims Because Plaintiff Did Not Read Warnings, Grants Summary Judgment Against Punitive Damages Claims, Finds Genuine Issues of Fact Regarding Design Defect Claim
- First Circuit Enforces Contractual Provision Relieving Manufacturer in Commercial Case of Liability for Negligent Design, Manufacture and Advertising of Goods
- Massachusetts Federal District Court Holds Medical Journal’s Interest in Confidentiality of Peer Review Process Outweighs Defendant’s Need for Discovery of Communications Between Journal Editors and Authors
Excerpt:
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Holds Motor Vehicles’ Failure to Comply with Applicable Safety Regulations Constitutes Injury For Purposes of Unfair or Deceptive Practices Statute Even Where Plaintiffs Suffer No Physical Injury or Financial Loss; Also Adopts Heightened Pleading Standards
In Iannacchino v. Ford Motor Co., --- N.E.2d ----, 2008 WL 2375179 (Jun. 13, 2008), plaintiffs, who sought to represent a class of Massachusetts owners of certain 1997-2000 motor vehicles, sued the defendant manufacturers for violation of Mass. Gen. L. ch. 93A (the Massachusetts unfair and deceptive practices statute), breach of express and implied warranties, and unjust enrichment, alleging that the vehicles’ door handles were defective for failing to comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 206 (FMVSS 206) relating to door latch strength. Although none of the putative class members’ door latches had malfunctioned at the time of suit, plaintiffs alleged their vehicles were unsafe due to the defect, their vehicles were worth less than they would have been had defendant complied with FMVSS 206, and plaintiffs would, at some unspecified time, incur the cost of repairing the vehicles. The trial court granted defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings on all claims except implied warranty and reported the case to the Massachusetts Appeals Court for interlocutory review. The Supreme Judicial Court granted direct appellate review on its own initiative.
The court observed that, to bring an action under ch. 93A, § 9, a consumer must have been "injured" by defendant’s unfair or deceptive act or practice. The court accepted plaintiffs’ argument that, if their vehicles failed to comply with FMVSS 206, plaintiffs would have suffered an injury because they "would have paid for more (viz., safety regulation-compliant vehicles) than they received." In reaching this conclusion, the court purported to distinguish
Hershenow v. Enterprise Rent-A-Car Co. of Boston, 445 Mass. 790 (2006) (see January 2006 Foley Hoag Product Liability Update), which held that consumers who rented a car under a collision damage waiver provision that violated Massachusetts statutory law had not suffered an "injury" for ch. 93A purposes, on the ground that the purported injury in that case had ended when the customers returned their cars, while the present plaintiffs continued to own allegedly noncompliant vehicles. The court neither discussed the fact that a ch. 93A, § 9 claim is not limited to persons with an ongoing injury nor identified any specific allegation supporting its conclusion that consumers would pay more for an FMVSS 206-compliant vehicle than a non-compliant one. (continues...)
Download the Foley Hoag August 2008 Product Liability Update (.pdf)
For more information about the Product Liability and Complex Tort Practice Group, please contact Dave Geiger.