A couple whose lawsuit against Best Buy already failed in Florida is trying again in Illinois, claiming the tech retailer’s Geek Squad service plan failed to meet the legal requirements of a warranty.
The electronics retailer, however, is seeking to have the case dismissed. And In a motion filed by Best Buy’s attorney Martin G. Durkin of Holland & Knight LLP, the company asserts there is a good reason the Geek Squad service contract doesn’t call itself a warranty: Because it’s not, they said.
Tawanna and Anthony Ware bought a Samsung television from a Best Buy location in Chicago, along with an additional five-year service package. In their lawsuit, the couple claimed the TV began experiencing trouble soon after, and could not be repaired, despite contacting Best Buy, the Geek Squad and Samsung-authorized repair facilities.
Martin Durkin
| Holland & Knight
In the single count of their lawsuit, filed on behalf of themselves and “all others similarly situated,” the plaintiffs claim a violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (MMWA). They allege the service package violates the law by not identifying itself as a full or limited warranty and by not allowing them to choose their own remedy.
The Wares are represented by attorneys Thomas C. Cronin, of Cronin & Co. Ltd., of Chicago, and Paul S. Rothstein, of Gainesville, Fla.
This is the fourth time the Wares have attempted to plead their case against Best Buy. They originally filed their claim in Florida, though Best Buy is not headquartered in that state, and the purchase was made in Chicago. After multiple amended complaints, the Florida court dismissed the claim for lack of jurisdiction.
In his motion to dismiss, Durkin says the Wares’ complaint never states who determined that the television was beyond repair or whether Best Buy replaced the faulty device. He says the complaint’s assumption that Best Buy “will not comply with the Federal Minimum Standards for full warranties” is unsupported by facts, but more importantly states that the five-year service package the Wares bought is not a full warranty and cannot be treated as one.
The MMWA says a warranty promises a certain level of quality in material or workmanship and that it is “part of the basis of the bargain.” Durkin says the service plan is better defined by the act as a service contract, which is a promise to perform “services relating to the maintenance or repair of a consumer product.” Because the Wares purchased the service plan separately from the TV, it was not part of the basis of the bargain.
“The service package … evidences on its face that it is a service plan providing terms under which Best Buy’s Geek Squad will service the TV, rather than a warranty that runs with the purchase of the TV,” the motion to dismiss reads.
Durkin bolsters his argument by saying even if the service package was a warranty, it would be a limited warranty covered by state law, not the MMWA. The suit does not claim a breach of warranty under Illinois law.
“Even if plaintiffs’ complaint could somehow be construed as asserting a claim for breach of an express warranty, plaintiffs fail to allege that Best Buy actually breached the alleged warranty,” he wrote, noting that the use of the phrase “will not comply” in their claim indicates that the Wares only anticipate the warranty breach. “Plaintiffs have failed to plead that the supposed warranty – which is not a warranty – was breached.”
Durkin noted the plaintiffs also missed the statute of limitations on their claim because it was tied up in the Florida courts. Only after being dismissed in Florida was the complaint filed in Illinois – about eight months after plaintiffs’ assert the four-year statute of limitations expired.
Best Buy requested that the suit be dismissed with prejudice and that it be dismissed as a defendant. Best Samsung has also been named as a defendant in the suit.