Romig v. Pella Corp., No. 2:14-cv-00433 2016 WL 3125472 (D.S.C. June 3, 2016)
Plaintiff brought suit on behalf of a putative class of owners of New York buildings with Pella windows, alleging that Pella's windows contained common design defects and that defendant breached its obligation under a limited warranty to repair or replace defective windows. Plaintiff argued that the "repair or replace" provision of the warranty failed in its essential purpose, invariably leading Pella to replace one defective window with another. Plaintiff sought certification of a single question: whether the windows were defective. The court denied the class certification motion. The fact that defects led to the same type of damage did not mean they constituted a common defect. So, the court reasoned, individual causation inquiries predominated over common questions. Additionally, Pella's affirmative defenses — statute of limitations, in particular — would involve individual inquiries as to when each plaintiff's claim accrued. View the decision.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
