CHICAGO — Whirlpool failed to unplug much of a federal class action over claims the appliance maker concealed defects in dishwashers, which caused them to leak and damage kitchens.
In an opinion issued April 28, U.S. District Judge Ronald Guzmán dismissed portions of a complaint from Christopher Redmon, who said a uniform defect in appliances sold under the KitchenAid, JennAir, Maytag and Kenmore brands caused the dishwashers to leak, damaging kitchen cabinets and floors.
According to Guzmán, Redmon said the pump motor diverter shaft seals in the dishwashers — part of the sump assembly — were inverted, exposing the shafts to debris and hot water. With debris amassing and the seal degrading, eventually water leaks between the sump and tub, then throughout the entire unit. Redmon claimed Whirlpool knew about and failed to remedy the defect, didn’t tell consumers and forced them to fix the dishwashers and cover kitchen damages connected to the leaks.
In arguing for dismissal, Whirlpool said Redmon’s claims for breaches of express and implied warranty failed because he bought his KitchenAid unit in 2017 and it didn’t begin leaking until 2020, after a one-year limited written warranty expired. Redmon said that expiration shouldn’t apply because Whirlpool knew of the defect when he bought the machine, citing customer complaints posted online as far back as 2013, appliance sale and repair firms, and its own product testing.
Guzmán agreed with Redmon, and also said he was correct in alleging the company’s remedy of product repair was insufficient because Whirlpool used parts with the same fundamental defect. He further said Redmon met his obligation to notify the company of the issue before filing the lawsuit. The judge further rejected Whirlpool’s arguments that Redmon’s attempt to fix his dishwasher neutralized his breach of warranty claim.
“Plaintiff has plausibly alleged that his repairs were a stopgap because the diverter-shaft-seal defect exists in the replacements, and at any rate, Whirlpool failed to offer plaintiff a remedy,” Guzmán wrote.
However, Guzmán sided with Whirlpool concerning the aspects of Redmon’s breach claim arising from representations outside its limited repair warranty. Guzmán said Redmon didn’t show how a third-party salesman’s statements about the quality of KitchenAid washers are attributable to Whirlpool or anything the company pledged regarding quality and reliability outside the one-year warranty.
Whirlpool also succeeded in arguing Redmon’s breach of implied warranty claim should fail because it wasn’t the immediate seller of the dishwasher. While Illinois law allows such claims under certain circumstances, Redmon didn’t adequately allege a direct relationship with Whirlpool, the judge said. He dismissed those aspects of the claims without prejudice.
Guzmán denied Whirlpool’s motion to dismiss Redmon’s breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims. The former, pleaded as an alternative to the warranty breach claim, survived because Whirlpool’s argument against it was identical. The latter, pleaded as an alternative to Redmon’s contract claim, survived because he “plausibly pleaded at least one claim that would support recovery in unjust enrichment” and adequately alleged the company’s knowledge of the defect.
Those same allegations helped Redmon’s statutory fraud claims survive, Guzmán explained, because they support his insistence the company concealed its knowledge of the defect. Those allegations, he wrote, “are sufficient to state a claim under the Consumer Fraud Act.”
Guzmán agreed to dismiss three other claims: negligence, fraudulent concealment under state law and a request for injunctive relief. Redmon conceded the economic loss doctrine barred his negligence claim and that he lacked standing to pursue an injunction because it’s unlikely he’ll suffer the same legal harm. Those counts were dismissed with prejudice.
The concealment claim under state law was dismissed without prejudice. Although Guzmán said Redmon didn’t show he had “a fiduciary, confidential or special-trust relationship with Whirlpool,” an amended complaint could resolve that shortcoming.
Plaintiffs in the class action are represented by attorneys Gregory F. Coleman and Rachel Lynn Soffin, of Greg Coleman Law, of Knoxville, Tenn.; Harper T. Segui, of Whitfield Bryson LLP, of Mount Pleasant, S.C.; and Tyler J. Story and Edward Wallace, of Wexler Wallace Llp, of Chicago.
Whirlpool is represented by attorneys Andrew M. Unthank and Galen D. Bellamy, of Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell Llp, of Denver; and Kristine Rinella-Argentine,of Seyfarth Shaw LLP, of Chicago.