Case Notes

In Leach v. Honeywell International Inc., Civ. Action No. 1:14-12245-LTS (D. Mass. Nov. 17, 2014), the plaintiff purchased a humidifier with a written warranty that the product would be free from defects for five years and the manufacturer would repair or replace it if it malfunctioned or was determined to be defective during the warranty period. The warranty also purported to disclaim all other express or implied warranties and to limit the manufacturer's liability to the cost of repairing or replacing the humidifier. The plaintiff's humidifier allegedly began to leak almost immediately after being installed, and later its heating coils became caked with mineral deposits. When the plaintiff informed the manufacturer of the alleged defect, the manufacturer responded that the problem likely originated with the humidifier's gasket and the plaintiff should hire a professional to service the unit. The manufacturer refused to send a replacement gasket, replace the humidifier or pay the cost of having a professional repair it.

The plaintiff filed a putative class action in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of himself and all other purchasers of the humidifier model asserting, among other claims, breach of express warranties, breach of the implied warranties of merchantability (the Massachusetts near-equivalent of strict liability) and fitness for a particular purpose, negligence and violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A (the Massachusetts unfair and deceptive practices statute). The court first held the allegations of the plaintiff's complaint were sufficient to state a claim for breach of express warranties. Regarding the implied warranty claims collectively, the court then held that the manufacturer's attempted disclaimer of such warranties with respect to consumer goods was unenforceable under governing Massachusetts case law. With respect specifically to the implied warranty of merchantability, the plaintiff's allegations plausibly stated a claim that the humidifier did not meet reasonable consumer expectations and thus was not fit for its ordinary purpose. The court also held that the economic loss doctrine barred recovery only to the extent the plaintiff sought recovery in tort, so the court only dismissed plaintiff's “strict liability” and “negligent design” claims on this ground, not his contract-based claims for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability.