Harris v. Darcars of New Carrollton, Inc. et al
Filing
60
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 2/26/2018. (tds, Deputy Clerk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTI~ICT OF MARYLAND
Southern
Division
p 3: SCI
10\3 rES 2
*
RICHARD L. HARRIS,
*
Plaintiff,
Case No.: G,III-16-3601
*
__
__
v.
FILED
LOGGED
__
__
ENTERED
RECEIVED
*
DARCARS OF NEW CARROLLTON,
INC., et al.
FEB 26 2018
*
Defendants.
*
*
AT GREENBELT
CLERK. u.s DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT Of MARYLAND
*
*
*
*
*
*
OEPUTY
BY
*
*
*
*
*
*
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PlaintifTRichard
Carrollton.
collectively.
warranties
L. Harris brings this action against Defendants
Inc. ("Darcars")
"Defendants").
rcquiring
alleging that Defendants
Warranty Act. 15 U.S.c.
PlaintifTalleges
refuscd to honor express and implied
Delendants
~ 2301 el sell .. and the Maryland
violated the Magnuson-Moss
Consumer
Protcction
Act.
Law Article ("CL") ~ 13-30 I el self .. and breached express and implicd warranties.
Now pending before the Court is Defendants'
Plaintiffs
US:'
them to repair damage to his vehiele caused by a manuf~lcturing defect
without cost to Plaintiff. Specifically.
Commercial
Darcars ofNcw
and Chrysler Group. LLC. nlkla FCA US LLC ("ITA
Motion to Strike Defendants'
Motion f(lr Summary
Expert Opinion.
r}
"
/ I
.Judgment. ECF No. 49. and
ECF No. 55. No hearing is necessary.
Loc. R. 105.6 (D. Md. 2016). For thc following
and denied. in part. and Plaintiffs
I.
rcasons. Dcfcndants'
Motion is grantcd. in part.
Motion is dcnied.1
BACKGROUND
a ncw 2012 Chryslcr 300 from Darcars in August 01'2012. lOCI' No.
Plaintiff purchased
54-2 ~ 3. Thc vehiclc is covcred by exprcss limitcd warrantics
including
Powertrain
sct ttll'th in the warranty booklct.
a 36 month / 36.000 milc Basic Limitcd Warranty and a 5 ycar / 100.000 mile
Limitcd Warranty
(hcrcinaftcr
"cxprcss
limitcd warrantics").
covcring ..thc cost of all
parts and labor nccded to rcpair any itcm on your vchiclc whcn it \eli the manUltlcturing
that is dclCctive in matcrials.
warranty
workmanship
or factory prcparation:'
Eel' No. 50-1 at 6.~ The
booklet also providcs that the buyer "may have somc implied warrantics.
the state where your vehicle was sold or is registered:'
Id. at 1. Howcver.
thc warranties
damages.
do not eovcr incidcntal
or eonsequcntial
Plaintiff first cxpcricnced
engine problcms
while driving the vchiclc. the cngine temperature
and the car suddcnly
cylinder heads wcrc warped from overhcating
nor do they covcr damage
in Septcmber
of 20 13. Plainti 1'1'
tcsti ticd that
gauge on thc vehicle's
dashboard
display. Id. Dat'Cars detcrmined
display
both an
that both
and rcplaced thc cylindcr hcads and camshali
frce
also ECF No. 50-2 at 14.
.I'l'l'
IOn June 19,2017. the Court held
on
the booklet states that
shut 01'[ ECF No. 54-2 ~ 7. At that timc. PlaintilTsaw
engine symbol and "z" symbol on the dashboard
of charge. ECF No. 50-3:
dcpcnding
or misuse. Id. at 5. 18.
causcd by abuse. negligcncc.
':iumped"
plant
J
motions hearing and denied Plaintiffs
Motion to Remand. ECF No. 29. The
Court determined that it has subject matter jurisdiction under the Magnuson-Moss Act because PlainlilT alleged
damages 01'$55.000 in his initial Complain!. See ECF No. 47; see aim 15 U.S.c. 2310(d)(3)(II) (civil action by
consumer for damages may not be brought under the Magnuson-Moss
Act if the alllount in controversy is less than
S50.000).
2 Pin cites to documents
tiled 011 the Court"s electronic filing system (CJ\,1/ECF) refer to the pagc numbers generated
by that systcm.
*
2
Approximately
one year later. PlaintilTagain
experienced
engine problems.
Plaintiff
brought the vehicle back to Darcars on September
4.2014
display seen during the September
ECF No. 54-2 ~ 10: ECF No. 50-4. Ilowever.
2013 incident.
unlike the 2013 incident. the engine temperature
off. ECF No. 54-2 ~ 10. Additionally.
York. PlaintilTdrove
alier seeing the same dashboard
gauge did not flicker and the engine did not shut
PlaintilTtestiJied
that. one day prior. while driving in New
the I)-(mt end of the vehicle over a cement stop. damaging
the vehicle. ECF No. 50-2 at 6_7.3 Darears provided
and free repair estimate.
indicating
warped due to "intensive
the underside
Plaintiff with a Recommended
that its technicians
Action Plan
found that both cylinder hcads were
over heating and low compression:'
there was a slow leak in the
radiator. and the radiator mount bracket was bent. ECF No. 50-5 at 3 (Recommended
Plan): see also ECF No. 50-4 (Inspection
pinpricks"
PlaintilTthat
c1arilied that they found ..two
the repair would not be covered under the vehicle's
the damage was caused by an accident.
cost $8.478.31.
Erie Insurance.
ECF No. 50-2 at 7. and estimated
warranty because
that the repair would
ECF No. 50-5 at 3.
Alier receiving
conducted
Invoice). The technicians
Action
in the radiator hosing and a hole at the top of the radiator. ECF No. 50-2 at 7. Darcars
then informed
accident.
of
the repair estimate.
PlaintifT Jiled a claim with his insurance company.
I<:H
damage to the vehicle's
engine and radiator caused by the af<:Jrementioned
ECF No. 50-15 at 4. Mishon I lorton. a material damage appraiser
an inspection
of the vehicle on September
for Eric Insurance.
8. 2014. lOCI' No. 50-6 at 5. Horton
observed
that there was a hole in the radiator. the upper radiator hose was leaking. and a Darear
mechanic
had perl<:JrIned a pressure test whereby the radiator exhibited
50-6 at 7-8: see also ECF No. 50-II
a "heavy leak:'
(I lorton photos of radiator leak). Eric Insurance
lOCI' No.
ultimatcly
Plaintiff had also. on prior occasions. damaged the underside of the vehicle but Darcars had not previously
informed him that he caused any major damage. See ECF No. 11: ECF No. 5-l-~~ Q.
J
,
.J
denied Plaintiffs
claim on November
25.2014.
hitting the ccment stop. but rather appeared
breakdown
determining
that the damages
to be thc result of wcar and tear and mechanical
or Illilure. ECF No. 50-15 at 5. Eric Insurance's
decision was subsequently
Administrative
Law Judge Michael D. Carl is on appeal to the Maryland
Administration
on August
10.2016.
PlaintifT has dcsignated
inspected
Troy Johnson
and this damage could not have had anything
28. 2016./d.
tested the coolant system to determine
Id. at 4. Johnson therefore determined
parts or workmanship
Defendants
2014 accident]
was minor
Id. at 5. He
whether the radiator leaked
occurred at the engine internal
that "based upon the lact the 2014
was similar to the enginc failure in 2013. it is morc likely than not that the
2014 engine failure was due to defective
defective
at 4. Johnson
to do with the eventual engine Illilure:'
and could not find any leaks. The only leak I could determine
engine malfunction
Insurance
as an expert witness. ECF No. 50-13. Johnson
opined that .. , t]he damage inflicted on the vehicle [Ii'om the September
head and/or gasket:'
upheld by
ECF No. 50-15.
the vehicle in the IlllI 01'2015 and again on December
further stated that he "pressure
were not related to
manulactured
parts and/or workmanship
related to the 2013 repair to the engine:'
have designated
or due to
Id. at 5.
FCA US technical advisor Joscph Morton as an expert
witness. ECF No. 55-I. Prior to Morton's
involvement.
conducted
a pre-suit inspection
summary.
ECF No. 56-2. Morton concurred
inspection
on February 21. 2017. ECF No. 55-1 at 4. i\'lorton obscrved damage to the underside
of the vehicle. including
on September
FCA US technical advisor Kenny Kase
22. 2016 and prcpared a preliminary
with Kase's prior rcport and conducted
the radiator. and opined in his July 10.2017
declaration
the radiator caused a coolant leak which in turn caused the engine to overheat.
~ 9. While Morton's
inspection
vehiclc rcport
his own
that damagc to
Eel' No. 50-14
did not reveal a leak in the radiator. ECF No. 55-I. Morton relied
4
on. in part. observations made by Darcars' technicians and Horton who concluded that the
radiator was leaking shortly alier the accident. lOCI'No. 50-14 ~ 9. Morton prcsumed that the
leak and overheating of the engine would have been displaycd through the vehicle's temperature
gauge and further opined that Plaintiffs continued use of the vehicle caused the engine to I~lil.
Id. ~ 10.
II.
STANDARD
OF REVIEW
"The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine
dispute as to any material t~lctand the movant is entitled to judgment as a maller of law:' Fed. R.
Civ. 1'. 56(a). "This standard provides that the mere existence of sOllie alleged I~lctualdispute
between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion Il>rsummary
judgment: the requirement is that there be no genuine issue of lIIalerial fact:' Anderson \'. Uher/y
Lobhy. /nc .. 477 U.S. 242. 247-48 (1986) (emphasis in original). Thus. "Itlhe party opposing a
properly supported motion Illr summary judgment 'may not rest upon the mere allegations or
denials of Ihisl pleadings.' but rather must 'set lorth speeilic facts showing that there is a
genuine issue Illl' trial. ... BouciJall'. Bal/illlore Rm'en.l' Foo/hall ('Iuh. !llC.. 346 F.3d 514. 525
(4th Cir. 2003) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. 1'. 56(e» (alteration in original).
On a motion tor summary judgment. the Court must "view the evidence in the light most
l~lVorabIcto ... the nonmovant. and draw all inlerenees in her favor without weighing the
evidence or assessing the witness' credibility:' Dennis \'. Colulllhia ('olle/on ,\/ed. ('Ir .. Inc.. 290
F.3d 639. 644-45 (4th Cir. 2002). The moving party bears the burden of showing that there is no
genuine issue as to any material fact. No genuine issue of material I~lctexists if the non-moving
party fails to make a sufficient showing on an essential clement of his case as to which he would
have the burden of proof. See ('elo/ex ('orp. \'. Calrel/. 477 U.S. 317.322-23
5
(1986).
III.
DISCUSSION
Plaintiffs
three claims all center on the same basic premise-that
caused by a manufacturing
defect covered under the vehicle's
express limited warranties
Warranty Act. See
breach of these warranties
under the Magnuson-Moss
conSlllller who is damaged
by the failure of a supplier. warrantor.
contract.
may bring suit for damages
pursuant
and other legal and equitable
Consumer
Protection
231 O(d)( I) ("'a
implied warranty.
relief').
to comply
or service
In Count II. Plaintiff
Act for failure to repair the ,'ehicle
to the terms of the ex press lim ited warrant ies. In Count III. Plai nt ifTbri ngs a state law
claim for breach of the express limited warranties
warranty of merchantability
implied warranties.
*
2-714 and breach of the implied
law governs whether Defendants
breached any of its express or
See Criekel7berger ". Ifl'ul7dai Molor America. 944 A.2d 1136. 1142 (Md.
2008) C'Magnuson-Moss
waiTanty provisions"):
Act supplements
Zillerbal'/
Spec. ApI'. 2008) (citing CL
...
under CL
* 2-715.
under
For all Counts. Maryland
warranty
*
or service contractor
under this chapter. or under a written warranty.
brings a claim under the Maryland
or the
See ECF No. 27. In Count I. Plaintiff brings a claim f()J"
implied warranty of merchantability.
with any obligation
the engine failure was
**
la Magnuson-Moss
l'.
State law with regard to its limited and implied
Americal7 Suzuki Molor Corp .. 958 A.2d 372. 384 (Md. Ct.
2-313-315
1 claim
("when a consumer
is the beneliciary
is merely a means f()r the consumer
6
of a limited
to pursue the
substantive
warranty
remedies
(Plaintiff acknowledging
in the Maryland
Commercial
that Count III is identical to Countl).~
A. Breach of Express and Implied Warranties
Defendants
warranty
establish
(Counts I and III)
claim that they are entitled to summary judgment
claims based on Plaintiffs
Under Maryland
inability to demonstrate
(referencing
on Plaintiirs
a defect attributable
law. to recover for breach of an express or implied warranty.
that. at the time of the sale. the vehicle contained
Defendants
see also ECF No. 27 ~ 20
Code"»:
and causally
related to Plaintiffs
damages.
a defect that was both attributable
to
Crickellherxer. 944 A.2d at 1143-44
the "three product litigation basics"): see also Harrisoll \'. Bill Caims l'ol1liac of
sufficient
for a jury to infer that the vehicle was defective
the time of manufacture).
competent
to Defendants.
I'laintilTmust
lvlarIOlI'l/<.'ixhts. /IIC •• 549 A.2d 385. 390 (Md. Ct. Spec. ApI'. 1988) (plaintitTmust
evidence
breach of
expert testimony
Delendants
argue that "under Maryland
to establish
in the original material or workmanship
and that the defect existed at
law. the plaintilTmust
a prima Illcie case that his vehicle surtered
of any of its systems:'
present
produce
li'mll a defect
ECF No. 50 at 14 (citing
Gelleral Motors Corp .. 459 F. Supp. 2d 407 (D. Md. 2006»). According
to Dcfendants.
opinion lacks an adequate
fllctual basis to support Plaintiffs
that the vehiclc's
contained
defect because Johnson
f\'(I/1.\' 1'.
a manufllcturing
between the defect and the manufacturer's
contention
Johnson's
engine
was unable to orter proof of the nexus
act or omission
causing the delect. See Ca/'ler
I'.
Shoppers Food Warehouse. 727 A,2d 958. 963 (Md. 1999) (expert testimony "has no probative
~ Under the Magnuson-Moss
Act. an implied \varranty is defined ~s "an implied ,\"urmnty under state law:"
15 U.S.C. ~ 230 I. Written warranties are divided into full and limited warranties. but the Act only provides
minimum standards for full \\'arrantics. IS U.S.C.
2303. Defendants' wan'anty was conspicuously labeled as a
limited \\tarranty. and Plaintiff does 110t argue otherwise. S(!c! ECF No. 50-1 '115: IS U.S.c. ~ 2303(a)(2) ("'Ifthe
written warranty does not Illeet the Federal minimum standards for warranty sel fOl1h in section 2304 oflhis title,
Ihen it shall be conspicuously designated a 'limited warranty .... ). As such, the Act "requires no less than Maryland
Law in order to establish breach of a limited or implied warranty as to a consumer product:' CrickeJ1hl!, ..•• \'.
!.eJ'
Hyul1dai ,\lOlaI' America. 944 A.2d I t36. 1145 (Md. 2(08).
*
7
force unless there is a sufticient
basis upon which to support"" the conclusions
offered) (citations
omitted).
Delendants'
principle concern with Johnson's
to identify a "particular
Specifically,
deICct" attributable
expert opinion is that Johnson was unable
to Defendants'
Johnson opined that the vehicle's
act or omission.
engine contained
a leak caused by a warped head
or tailed head gasket but did not specify the exact part that was defective,
caused by a defect in the material itself or the workmanship,
Iromthe
originalmanufacturc
deposition
transcript)5
whether the delect was
and whether the deICct stemmed
of the vehicle or the 2013 repair. ECF No. 50-12 at 5-6 (Johnson
Furthermore,
while Johnson acknowledged
leaking radiator can lead to the same damage observed
possibility
ECF No. 50 at 15.
that driving a vehicle with a
in PlaintilTs
vehicle, he dismissed
this
even in the lilce of evidence that the radiator had been leaking. ECF No. 50-12 at 9-
10; see also id. at 12 (Johnson dismissing
Despite Delendants'
testimony,
arguments,
DaI'Cars' Rccommended
in reviewing
Johnson's
Action Plan as "sales talk").
statement
ECF Nos. 54-3, 50-12, the Court finds that Johnson's
an adequate
lactual basis, See Wood
I'.
is well settled that the trial judge-not
adequate
and deposition
expert opinion is supported
by
Toyota, 760 A.2d 315, 321 (Md. Cl. Spec. App. 2000) (,.It
the expert witness-determines
whether there exists an
lactual basis It)r the opinion at issue."). Johnson docs not presume that simply because
the engine was damaged,
conclusion
a manulilcturing
delect must have been the cause. Rather. Johnson"s
that the damagc was due to a detect in the cylinder heads or head gaskets was based
on his observation
that he could hear coolant leaking into the engine block and that the damage
5 Defendants further argue that if the manufacturing defect was the result oflile 2013 repair. PlaintilTcan ollly
recover under a claim of negligent repair. not breach ofwarml1ty. ECF No. 58 at 9. Ilowcvcr. Plaintiff submits page
18 of Defendants' subject \varranty. which provides that exchanged pm1s used in warranty rcpnirs have the sallle
\varranties as new parts. ECr- No. 5-1.-1. Defendants omitted this page frol11 the exhibits provided with its motion for
sUlllmary judgment and do not respond to Plaintitrs argument to this point in its reply brief. ECF No. 58. Moreover.
Plaintiff's
receipt
for work performed
in 2013
indicates
Therefore.
the Court assumes tlw,t any work performed
covering the rest of the vchicle.
that the P~1I1swere replaced
in 2013
is covered
by
under \varranty.
ECF No. 50-3.
thc samc c.\prcss limited
warrant
il:s
was similar to what was previously
50-12 at 5-6. (/:
warranty
Eml1S.
sustained
ECr No.
in 2013 and covered under the warranty.
459 F. Supp. 2d at 411 (disregarding
expert testimony
on breach of
claim when expert failed to offer an opinion as to whether the vehicle suffered
defect during the warranty period and if that detect resulled in a diminution
value). Johnson
also had an adequate
engine failure-he
conducted
from a
in the vehicle's
factual basis to dismiss a leaking radiator as a cause of the
or observed a pressure test on three separate occasions
and did not
find any evidence
that the radiator was leaking and further opined that the damage sustained
the undercarriage
of the vehicle was minor and would not have caused engine fllilure. ECF No.
54-3
'i~
5. 9. That Johnson cannot pinpoint the exact part that was delective
was attributed
to the material itself or the workmanship
render his opinion irrelevant.
1993) (allowing
See Wa/son
expert testimony
I'.
manufacturing
material
does not
setting forth multiple potential sources of a design delect
decide that it is more probable
beyond mere speculation
that would enable a
than not that the damage was caused by a
Co .. 779 A.2d362.
370 (Md. 2001)). DelCndants
that cast doubt on the weight of Plaintiffs
be persuasive
with its installation
delect. Crickenherger. 944 A.2d at 1143 (citing Ford ,\foroI' CO, I'. General
Acciden/lnsurance
arguments
or whether the delect
Sunhealll Corl'. 816 F. Supp. 384. 388 (D. Me!'
causing a fire). Thus. Plaintiff provides evidence
jury to rationally
associated
to
to ajury.
the existence
e\'idence.
ofa manulacturing
introduce a number of
and while these arguments
may
detect remains a genuine dispute of
fact that cannot be resolved on a motion t()r summary judgment."
Because the Court finds th<1tJohnson"s expert opinion has sliflicicllt evidentiary support. the COllrt need not fully
address Defendants' argument that. in the absence of expert testimony. Plainti IT may not bring a manu Hlcluring
defect claim. ECF No. 50 at 14. Nonetheless. the C01ll1 notes that under Maryland law. a plaintiff may rely 011 "an
inference ora defect based on the happening Dran accident. where circulllstantial evidence tends to eliminate olher
causes, such as misuse or alteration" Harrison. 54<) /\.2d at J()O. While expert testimony is required "whcn thc
subject of the inference is so particularly related to some science or profcssion that it is beyond the ken of the
average layperson:' it is not required for "matters of wh ich the jurors would be aware by virtue of COllllllon
knowledge:" Wuod 1'. 7(~\,oltl Alolor Corp .. 760 A.2d 315. 318-19 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 20(0) (internal quotations
and citations omitted); set! also Laing 1', "olk.nl'ugt!l1 nfAmerh'(l. II/C.. 949 /\.2d 26. 39-40 (Md, Ct. Spec. /\pp.
h
<)
H. Maryland
Regardless
Maryland
Protectioll
of whether Dcfcndants
Consumer
Protcction
unfair and deceptivc
warranties
Consumer
Act Claim (COUlit II)
brcachcd the express or implied warrantics.
Act claim cannot survi\'e.
trade practices when reprcscnting
and that in the event oCmalCunction
unfair or deceptive
dcccptive
DeCendants'
Law:'
that the vehicle came with cxprcss limited
Protection
breach oCthc warranty.
trade practicc. ""[Tlhe only allowance
claims through evidence
period. the vehicle would be
Act prohibits the usc oC
without more. is not an unl~lir or
the Consumcr
oCa breach of warranty
Protcction
is the specilic rcfercnce
Emns. 4591'. Supp. 2d a1414 (holding that breach oCwarranty
deceptive
Maryland
Act makes f(,r proving
to thc Maryland
Automotivc
Warranty
that unCair or deceptive
Enforeemcnt
DeCcndants misrepresentcd
Act. also known as thc Maryland
is granted in I~l\'or oCthc Defendants
of the
Lemon Law).
Plainti 1'1'
has not
Lemon Law. and the rccord provides no indication
the scope of the warranty or condition
sale. Thus. summary judgmcnt
see also
trade practices include violations
While Plainti Cfmay dispute whether the damage is covcred undcr the warranty.
brought a claim under the Maryland
Lemon
is not an unl~lir or
tradc practicc whcn scller did not know oCalleged delcct at time oCsak):
CL ~ 13-30 I(14 )(xi) (providing
used
in the sale or otfer o("sale oCCOnSUlllCrgoods. CL ~ 13-
trade practices
303(1 )-(2). Howcver.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants
during the warranty
fully repaid at no cost. ECF No. 27 '\17. Thc Consumer
PlaintiJrs
that
of the vehicle at the time oC
on Count II.
C. Recovery of ConsC
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?