In re Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc.
288 F.3d 1012 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a diversity-based nationwide class action, a federal court must apply the choice-of-law rules of the forum state, which typically requires applying the substantive laws of the various states where the class members' injuries occurred, thereby precluding certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 due to a lack of commonality and predominance.
Facts:
- During the late 1990s, Firestone tires on Ford Explorer SUVs experienced an abnormally high failure rate, leading to injuries and deaths.
- Beginning in August 2000, Firestone and Ford initiated recalls to replace millions of the tires in question.
- The plaintiffs in this consolidated action were owners or lessees of Ford Explorers or Firestone tires that had not failed.
- These plaintiffs sought compensation not for physical injury, but for economic losses, such as the diminished resale value of their vehicles and tires due to the risk of failure.
- The proposed plaintiff classes were nationwide, encompassing owners of Ford Explorer models from 1991-2001 and owners of several models of Firestone tires, totaling over 3 million vehicles and 60 million tires.
- The products in question were not uniform; the tires included 67 different master specifications, and about 20% of the relevant Ford Explorers were originally sold with Goodyear tires, not Firestone tires.
Procedural Posture:
- Multiple lawsuits were filed in federal courts across the country concerning Ford Explorer and Firestone tire failures.
- The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred these cases to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana for consolidated pretrial proceedings.
- In the Southern District of Indiana, plaintiffs' counsel filed a new consolidated suit and moved to certify a nationwide class action.
- The district court certified two nationwide classes of consumers who had not suffered physical injury, one for Explorer owners and one for Firestone tire owners.
- Defendants Ford and Firestone filed a petition with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit for interlocutory review of the class certification order, which the appellate court granted.
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 certification of a nationwide class action for economic loss claims arising from allegedly defective products comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 when the forum state's choice-of-law rules require applying the substantive laws of all 50 states where the products were sold and the alleged harm occurred?
Opinions:
Majority - Easterbrook, Circuit Judge
No. The certification of the nationwide class action is improper because Indiana's choice-of-law rules require applying the law of the state where each class member's harm occurred, not the uniform law of the defendants' headquarters. This variation in state laws across the class defeats the commonality and predominance requirements of Rule 23. Under the Erie doctrine and Klaxon, a federal court sitting in diversity must apply the choice-of-law rules of the forum state, which in this case is Indiana. Indiana follows the rule of lex loci delicti, meaning the law of the place of the wrong or injury governs. For the plaintiffs' claims of economic loss (diminished value, breach of warranty, consumer fraud), the injury occurred where the vehicles or tires were purchased or resold—across all 50 states. Applying the varying consumer protection and contract laws of 50 different jurisdictions makes a single nationwide class unmanageable and violates Rule 23(b)(3)'s requirement that common questions of law predominate. The court rejected the 'central planner' model of litigation, arguing that a 'decentralized process of multiple trials' is superior for yielding the information needed to accurately evaluate mass tort claims.
Analysis:
This is a landmark decision that significantly restricts the viability of nationwide class actions in federal courts for claims based on state law, particularly in product liability and consumer protection cases. The court's strict application of state choice-of-law rules under Klaxon reinforces principles of federalism and prevents federal courts from creating a uniform substantive law to facilitate litigation efficiency. The opinion's endorsement of a 'decentralized' market-like approach to litigation, favoring multiple individual trials to generate information, signals a strong judicial skepticism toward the 'central planner' model of resolving mass torts through a single, massive class action. Consequently, this case has made it substantially more difficult for plaintiffs to aggregate small-value claims from across the country into a single powerful lawsuit.
Unlock the full brief for In re Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc.