PITTSBURGH – A Pennsylvania federal judge has decided to partially grant a motion to dismiss elements of class action litigation filed on behalf of individuals who claim to have been burned or injured by hot hair rollers.
Magistrate Judge Patricia L. Dodge issued a ruling on June 30, which granted in part and denied in part Spectrum Brands, Inc.’s motion to dismiss the class action brought against it, filed by lead plaintiffs Bruce Winkworth and Marcia Botelho.
The plaintiffs brought suit against Spectrum Brands in the Jefferson County Court of Common Pleas on July 2, 2019 to seek damages with respect to an allegedly-defective and dangerous condition present in Remington-brand Hot Rollers that were warranted, advertised, distributed and sold by the defendant.
They claim that due to an inherent defect, the Hot Rollers heat to unreasonable and unsafe temperatures when operated as directed, and therefore, expose consumers to dangerous contact with their skin.
The suit was then removed to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania by the defendant on Aug. 14, 2019, citing the Class Action Fairness Act.
“The complaint alleges claims for breach of express warranty, breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, violation of the Magnuson-Moss Consumer Products Warranties Act, negligence and negligent failure to warn,” Dodge said.
“Plaintiffs assert these claims on their own behalf and on behalf of two putative classes: (1) A nationwide declaratory judgment/injunctive relief class and (2) A Pennsylvania-only damages class. Specifically excluded from both classes are claims for personal injury and wrongful death.”
The suit alleges Winkworth bought the Hot Rollers product in February 2018 for the user, Botelho, who reported having been burned by the product on May 17, 2018. She claims she was not warned about the alleged defect causing the device to heat unsafely and that the supposed defect in question renders it unfit to use, violating the product’s own limited two-year warranty.
In response, Spectrum argued that the breach of warranty claims were negated because it offered Botelho a product replacement and a refund, and the limited warranty only protects against defects due to faulty material or workmanship, not product design defects.
Because Botelho refused the product replacement and a refund, Dodge ruled that the breach of express warranty claim would be dismissed without prejudice.
“Based upon the complaint and its exhibits, it appears that Botelho was offered a replacement product by Spectrum and rejected it. That would satisfy Spectrum’s warranty obligations and compel dismissal of this claim,” Dodge said.
As to the breach of implied warranty of merchantability claim, Dodge found the plaintiffs had asserted a valid claim since she felt it was unclear that Spectrum offered Botelho a refund which she did not accept.
“Botelho updated Spectrum on her alleged injury and Spectrum advised her that her claim was being forwarded to its insurance company. This suggests that the focus of that particular exchange may have been on Botelho’s injury, as opposed to addressing a warranty claim,” Dodge said.
Dodge further upheld the Magnuson-Moss Consumer Products Warranties Act claim, since it was tied to the breach of implied warranty of merchantability count, but further ruled that the negligence and negligent failure to warn claims were barred by the economic loss doctrine.
“Plaintiffs do not allege any facts in their complaint from which the Court could conclude that Spectrum had duties to them that are not encompassed in these express and implied warranties, or that Spectrum has other duties that are grounded in their tort,” Dodge stated.
“Therefore, as alleged in their complaint, any duty Spectrum owes to plaintiffs regarding the condition of the Hot Rollers is governed solely by the express and implied warranties. Because no independent legal duty apart from those warranties exist, the Court finds that plaintiffs’ negligence and negligent failure to warn claims are barred by the economic loss rule and must be dismissed.”
Likewise, Dodge dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims to seek injunctive relief, feeling they did not allege they would sustain future injury. Finally, Dodge dismissed all claims from plaintiff Winkworth without prejudice, as his only connection to the case or its allegations is that he bought the product – not that he used it, knew about its alleged defects, told Spectrum about any defects or communicated with Spectrum in any way.
The plaintiffs are represented by Patrick Howard and Charles J. Kocher of Saltz Mongeluzzi & Bendesky in Philadelphia, plus Troy M. Frederick of Frederick Law Group in Indiana, Pa.
The defendants are represented by Loly Tor, Michael S. Nelson and Patrick J. Perrone of K&L Gates, in Newark, N.J. and Pittsburgh.
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania case 2:20-cv-01011
Jefferson County Court of Common Pleas case 588-2019
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com