PHILADELPHIA – A federal judge has ruled that a man’s claim for breach of express warranties against Sunbeam would be thrown out in the wake of his filing suit against the manufacturer, after a malfunctioning water cooler led to a fire occurring at his property.
In an April 22 decision, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Judge Anita B. Brody ordered the dismissal of the claim without prejudice from plaintiff Richard Mueller’s case against Sunbeam Products, Inc. (doing business as “Prestige Home Comfort/Elite Group, Inc.”)
“On April 13, 2019, a malfunctioning water cooler caused a fire to erupt at plaintiff Richard Mueller’s property that resulted in extensive damage to the property. The malfunctioning water cooler was designed, manufactured, assembled, tested, inspected, marketed, and distributed into the stream of commerce by defendant Sunbeam Products, Inc. doing business as Prestige Home Comfort/Elite Group, Inc.,” Brody said.
“Due to the fire, Mueller brings state law claims against Sunbeam for strict liability, negligence, breach of implied warranties, and breach of express warranties. I exercise diversity jurisdiction over the action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1332. Sunbeam moves to dismiss Mueller’s breach of express warranties claim. I will grant Mueller’s partial motion to dismiss Mueller’s breach of express warranties claim.”
Mueller initially brought the action in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas on Feb. 8 and it was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on Feb. 22.
Sunbeam then filed a partial motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim on March 15, with respect to the breach of express warranties count contained in Mueller’s complaint.
“Sunbeam moves to dismiss Mueller’s breach of express warranties claim on the grounds that Mueller has failed to sufficiently plead the claim,” Brody said.
“Under Pennsylvania law, express warranties are created by the seller as follows: (1) Any affirmation of fact or promise made by the seller to the buyer which relates to the goods and becomes part of the basis of the bargain creates an express warranty that the goods shall conform to the affirmation or promise; (2) Any description of the goods which is made part of the basis of the bargain creates an express warranty that the goods shall conform to the description; (3) Any sample or model which is made part of the basis of the bargain creates an express warranty that the whole of the goods shall conform to the sample or model.”
Brody concurred with Sunbeam that Mueller did not provide adequate support for the breach of express warranties claim.
“Mueller’s complaint includes only a few sparse allegations related to his express breach of warranties claim. Mueller alleges that ‘in conjunction with the design, manufacture and sale of the subject water cooler, Sunbeam expressly…warranted that the product would be free from defects and safe to use for its intended purpose’ [and] ‘Sunbeam breached these warranties because the subject water cooler was not free of defects, was not of merchantable quality, and was not fit for the purposes for which it was intended.’ Mueller also alleges that he ‘relied upon the warranties set forth by Sunbeam to [his] detriment.’ Lastly, he alleges that his ‘damages occurred as a direct result of Sunbeam’s…breach of its expressed warranties,” Brody stated.
“In a conclusory fashion, Mueller recites the legal elements of a claim for breach of express warranties, but he does not provide the factual support to plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief. While Mueller alleges that Sunbeam made express warranties ‘in conjunction’ with its design, manufacture, and sale of the water cooler, Mueller does not state when, how, or to whom these affirmations or promises were made. Moreover, Mueller merely alleges that he ‘relied upon the warranties,’ but he does not indicate whether he relied on the warranties when making his decision to purchase the water cooler. In fact, Mueller never alleges that he purchased the water cooler. Rather, Mueller only alleges that, prior to the fire on April 13, 2019, he ‘operated the subject water cooler.”
Brody concluded by ordering the dismissal of the breach of express warranties claim without prejudice, in order for Mueller to have the ability to file an amended complaint moving forward.
“Because Mueller has not alleged that he is the buyer of the water cooler, he has not provided factual allegations necessary to raise a reasonable inference that Sunbeam’s affirmations of fact or promise ‘formed the basis of the bargain’ to purchase the water cooler,” Brody said.
“Mueller has not plausibly stated a claim for breach of express warranties. I will grant Sunbeam’s motion to dismiss Mueller’s breach of express warranties claim without prejudice, for Mueller to file an amended complaint.”
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:21-cv-00898
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com