Lexplug logoLexplug

Gina Glazer v. Whirlpool Corporation

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
722 F.3d 838 (2013)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

When a class action is certified for liability purposes only, the predominance requirement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) is satisfied if common questions regarding liability are central to the claims, even if damages must be calculated on an individual basis for each class member.


Facts:

  • In 2002, Whirlpool Corporation began manufacturing and selling its Duet line of front-loading washing machines.
  • Gina Glazer purchased a Duet Sport® machine in 2006, and Trina Allison purchased a Duet HT® machine in 2005.
  • Within six to eight months of their purchases, both Glazer and Allison experienced strong mold and mildew odors emanating from their machines and on their laundry.
  • Both women observed visible mold growing on components inside their machines, such as the rubber door seal and detergent dispenser.
  • Internal Whirlpool documents dating back to 2003 revealed the company was aware of numerous consumer complaints about mold.
  • By 2004, a Whirlpool internal team concluded that the design of the machines' 'Access' and 'Horizon' platforms created an 'ideal environment for molds and bacteria to flourish' and that consumer habits were not the root cause.
  • Whirlpool engineers identified specific design flaws that allowed water and soil residue, or 'biofilm,' to accumulate in areas consumers could not clean, which led to mold growth.
  • Despite its internal knowledge of the defect, Whirlpool did not adequately warn potential buyers of the machines' propensity to develop mold.

Procedural Posture:

  • Gina Glazer and Trina Allison filed a class action lawsuit against Whirlpool Corporation in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio.
  • The district court certified a liability-only class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3).
  • Whirlpool filed an interlocutory appeal of the class certification order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
  • The Sixth Circuit initially affirmed the district court's certification order.
  • Whirlpool petitioned the Supreme Court of the United States for a writ of certiorari.
  • The Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated the Sixth Circuit's prior judgment, and remanded the case to the Sixth Circuit for reconsideration in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Comcast Corp. v. Behrend.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does the need for individual damages determinations defeat the predominance requirement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) for a liability-only class certification in a product defect case?


Opinions:

Majority - Judge Jane B. Stranch

No. The need for individual damages determinations does not defeat the predominance requirement for certifying a liability-only class. This case is distinguishable from Comcast Corp. v. Behrend because the district court here bifurcated the proceedings, certifying a class for liability issues only while reserving all damages questions for individual determination. The 'black letter rule' that individual damages calculations do not preclude class certification under Rule 23(b)(3) remains valid when liability questions common to the class predominate. The central, common questions here—whether a design defect caused mold growth and whether Whirlpool failed to warn consumers—are susceptible to class-wide proof and their resolution will drive the litigation. Therefore, all Duet owners were injured at the point of sale by purchasing a product with a latent defect, regardless of whether mold has yet manifested, making class treatment for liability superior and appropriate.



Analysis:

This decision significantly clarifies the scope of the Supreme Court's ruling in Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, establishing that its stringent requirements for matching damages models to liability theories do not bar the certification of liability-only classes. By affirming the bifurcation of liability and damages, the court preserves a critical mechanism for consumer class actions, particularly in product defect cases where the existence of a defect is a common question but the extent of individual harm varies. This ruling ensures that the class action device remains a viable tool for aggregating small-value claims that would otherwise be impractical to litigate individually, thereby promoting corporate accountability.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Gina Glazer v. Whirlpool Corporation (2013)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"