Haft v. Haier US Appliance Solutions, Inc.

578 F.Supp.3d 436

Asher HAFT and Robert Fisher, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,

v.HAIER US APPLIANCE SOLUTIONS, INC. d/b/a GE Appliances, Defendant.

1:21-cv-00506-GHW

United States District Court, S.D. New York.

Signed January 5, 2022

Harper Todd Segui, Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman, PLLC, Mount Pleasant, SC, Jonathan Betten Cohen, Rachel L. Soffin, Justin G. Day, Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman, PLLC First Horizon Bank, Knoxville, TN, Alex Rafael Straus, Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman, PLLC, Beverly Hills, CA, for Plaintiff Asher Haft.

Harper Todd Segui, Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman, PLLC, Mount Pleasant, SC, Justin G. Day, Rachel L. Soffin, Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman, PLLC First Horizon Bank, Knoxville, TN, for Plaintiff Robert Fisher.

Hays Doan, Juan S. Ramirez, Marissa Ronk, Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell LLP, Denver, CO, Maryaneh Mona Simonian, Pryor Cashman LLP, New York, NY, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

GREGORY H. WOODS, United States District Judge:

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiffs Asher Haft and Robert Fisher bought household wall and range ovens designed and manufactured by Defendant Haier US Appliance Solutions Inc. d/b/a GE Appliances. The doors of those ovens were constructed with soda lime glass, which is prone to break or shatter. Both of Plaintiffs’ oven doors cracked after the one-year warranty period for repair or replacement expired, resulting in Plaintiffs paying out-of-pocket to repair and replace the oven doors. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant knew that the soda lime glass oven doors were likely to fail but failed to disclose that fact prior to their purchase of the ovens.

On behalf of themselves and putative New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania subclasses, Plaintiffs bring claims for breach of warranty, breach of contract, and for violations of various state consumer protection statutes. Defendant moved to dismiss those claims. Because Plaintiffs do not sufficiently allege that the Defendant's one-year limitation on warranties should not be enforced, Plaintiffs have not adequately pleaded claims for breach of warranty or breach of contract. However, Plaintiffs’ claims under New Jersey and Pennsylvania consumer protections laws may proceed.

II. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY¹

A. Defendant's Appliance Business and Relevant Warranties

Defendant Haier US Solutions, Inc. d/b/a GE Appliances ("Defendant" or "GE") is a home appliance company that "designs, manufactures, markets, advertises, distributes, and sells" its products, including wall and range ovens to consumers throughout the United States. FAC ¶¶ 2, 4. On its website, GE represents that it is "America's #1 Appliance Brand," and that it "make[s] life better by designing and building the world's best appliances. From design to production to service, our goal is to help people improve their lives at home." Id. ¶¶ 20, 18. It similarly states that it "make[s] appliances that work in service of you .... [W]hen we build our world-class refrigerators, dishwashers, ovens, washers and dryers—what we're really creating are good things, for life." Id. ¶ 21.

Defendant's ovens—the appliance at issue in this case—come with certain warranties. The warranties relevant to this case can be found on the fourth page of the ovens’ user manual.² An express warranty provision states

For the period of one year from the date of the original purchase. GE will provide any part of the range which fails due to a defect in materials or workmanship. During this limited one-year warranty, GE will also provide, free of charge, all labor and in-home service to replace the defective part.

Dkt. No. 40, Ex. B at 4. The same page also includes the following language

Your sole and exclusive remedy is product repair as provided in this Limited Warranty. Any implied warranties, including the implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose, are limited to one year or the shortest period allowed by law.

Id. The user manual's table of contents, appearing on the manual's first page, includes an entry for "Warranty " that is written in bold text and directs readers to page 4 of the manual.

B. Defendant's Soda Lime Glass Oven Doors

According to Plaintiffs, "each of the [Defendant's] Ovens contains common design and/or manufacturing [d]efects that cause the glass on their doors to shatter." FAC ¶ 29. Specifically, Defendant's ovens feature an outer window made of soda lime glass. Id. ¶ 38. When heated, soda lime glass expands substantially more than other types of glass—it has a "high coefficient of thermal expansion with very poor thermal shock resistance." Id. ¶ 39. Due to those characteristics, the glass doors in the ovens cannot withstand the same range of temperature changes as other types of glass; thus, the soda lime glass windows are prone to break or shatter. Id. ¶ 40. In addition, although soda lime glass must be tempered (or "heat strengthened") to increase its "thermal shock resistance," tempering can exacerbate those issues if the glass is "unevenly and/or poorly heated (i.e. tempered), or not heated to high enough temperatures to enhance the safety of the glass." Id. ¶ 43.

According to Plaintiffs, the proclivity of the soda lime glass to "crack[ ], break[ ], shatter[ ], or explode[e]" renders the glass "unsuitable for use" in Defendant's ovens. Id. ¶ 42. Plaintiffs further allege that "[a]s a manufacturer of the [o]vens, and of numerous other household cooking appliances for more than 100 years, [Defendant] knew, or should have known" that the soda lime glass was particularly susceptible to thermal shock failure" and that it was "inappropriate for use in glass oven doors." Id. ¶ 44. However, Defendant "does not disclose that the Ovens suffer from the Defect." Id. ¶ 76. Plaintiffs further allege that the defects with the glass "typically manifest[ ]" after the expiration of GE's warranties. Id. ¶ 45.

As of March 9, 2021, Defendant had not remediated or eliminated the defect in the ovens, nor had it "remove[d] them from the stream of commerce." Id. ¶ 67.

C. Plaintiffs Purchase Defendant's Defective Ovens Plaintiff Asher Haft

Plaintiff Haft, who lives in Brooklyn, New York, purchased his oven in from "Town Appliance" in Lakewood, New Jersey on March 20, 2018. Id. ¶ 47. He paid $1,175 plus tax. Id. Mr. Haft purchased the oven based on the GE name, reputation, positive online review, and price. Id. ¶ 48. He was unaware of any defect in the soda lime glass oven door, and Defendant did not disclose any defect. Id. ¶¶ 48, 53. The oven was later installed in his kitchen, where he regularly used it. Id. ¶ 49.

Over two years later, on October 22, 2020, Mr. Haft's oven door cracked in multiple locations while heated to 450 degrees. Id. ¶ 50. Mr. Haft was not able to use the oven after the door cracked and contacted Defendant to request that it pay for the costs associated with replacing the door. Id. ¶ 52–53. A service provider replaced the door and charged Mr. Haft $283.31—$141.25 for the replacement part, $118.95 for the service call, and $23.11 in tax. Id. ¶ 52. When Mr. Haft contacted GE to request reimbursement for the $283.31, they agree to reimburse only the $118.95 for the service call. Id. ¶ 53. He alleges that he would not have purchased the oven, or would have paid less for it, had he known of the defect. Id. ¶ 56.

Plaintiff Robert Fisher

Fisher, a Pennsylvania resident, purchased his oven from a store in Wilmington, Delaware "[i]n or around January 2018". Id. ¶¶ 14, 57. Mr. Fisher similarly purchased his oven "based on the GE name, reputation, positive online reviews, and price." Id. ¶ 58. He was also unaware of any defect in the soda lime glass door, which Defendant similarly did not disclose. Id. The oven was installed in Mr. Fisher's home, where he regularly used it. Id. ¶ 59.

In July 2020, more than two years after he purchased the oven, Mr. Fisher noticed that the oven's glass door had cracked in several places. Id. ¶ 60. Mr. Fisher was unable to use the oven in that state. Id. ¶ 61. Mr. Fisher contacted a third-party service provider to replace the oven door, which it did, with the service visit costing $100, and the replacement parts costing $224. Id. ¶ 62. Mr. Fisher was not reimbursed for any portion of this amount because the glass cracked outside of the one-year limited warranty. Id. He alleges that he would not have purchased the oven, or would have paid less for it, had he known of the defect. Id. ¶ 65.

D. Other Reports of Defective Oven Doors and Defendant's Responses

Plaintiffs allege that Defendant knew of the defective soda lime glass doors, and that its knowledge can be established "through consumer complaints, including several years[ ] of public Internet posts and warranty claims regarding the glass doors of the ovens shattering during normal use." Id. ¶ 67. For example, Plaintiffs point to a complaint published on www.houzz.com where a customer complained that her oven door "shattered" after she had used it for two years. Id. ¶ 71. According to that customer, GE refused to pay labor costs to repair the glass because the oven was "out of warranty." Id. In another complaint published on www.consumeraffairs.com, a customer stated that their oven glass door had "exploded."³ Id.

There have also been several reports of the defect in regional press. For instance, in 2011, ABC7 News in San Francisco reported on a customer whose oven door had shattered and scattered glass in all directions. Id. ¶ 68. Defendant responded to the news agency and stated that it "warns consumers about inadvertent damage to glass oven doors—including the potential for broken or shattered glass—in its Use and Care Guide." Id. In addition, a contributing columnist for the Toronto Star newspaper wrote a column about the glass in her three-year-old oven door shattering in 2012. Id. ¶ 69. Defendant responded to the author of the article on Twitter. Id. And then, in 2015, AB...