Lexplug logoLexplug

In re Zurn Pex Plumbing Products Liability Litigation

United States District Court, D. Minnesota
Not Reported in F.Supp.2d (2010)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

For a product defect case, class certification under Rule 23(b)(3) is appropriate for breach of warranty claims even for plaintiffs whose products have not yet failed, but is only appropriate for negligence claims for plaintiffs who have suffered a manifested injury. Certification is generally improper for consumer fraud claims that require individualized proof of reliance.


Facts:

  • Zurn Pex, Inc. designed, manufactured, and sold a cross-linked polyethylene plumbing system, known as 'pex', as an alternative to traditional copper systems.
  • The Zurn pex system utilized brass fittings with a high zinc content, which were secured by crimping copper rings around the pex tubing.
  • This crimping process placed stress on the high-zinc brass fittings.
  • Plaintiffs, who own homes with Zurn pex plumbing systems, alleged the fittings were susceptible to premature failure due to dezincification and stress-corrosion cracking.
  • Zurn marketed its pex system as being easier to install, cheaper, and longer-lasting than copper plumbing.
  • Some plaintiffs' plumbing systems leaked, causing damage to their properties.
  • Plaintiffs alleged Zurn falsely represented the quality and reliability of the pex systems and knew or should have known the fittings were prone to failure.

Procedural Posture:

  • Denise and Terry Cox filed a class action lawsuit in Minnesota state court.
  • Defendants Zurn Pex, Inc. and Zurn Industries, LLC removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.
  • Several related lawsuits were filed in other federal districts.
  • The Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation centralized the related cases in the District of Minnesota for coordinated pretrial proceedings.
  • Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Class Certification in the U.S. District Court.
  • Defendants filed motions to exclude portions of the expert testimony offered by Plaintiffs.

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 a proposed class of homeowners with allegedly defective plumbing fittings satisfy the predominance and superiority requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) for claims of breach of warranty, negligence, and consumer protection violations, where individual issues of causation, reliance, and injury may exist?


Opinions:

Majority - Montgomery, J.

Yes, in part, and No, in part. The proposed class satisfies the requirements for certification for the breach of warranty and negligence claims (with modification), but not for the consumer protection claims. For consumer protection claims sounding in fraud, individual issues of reliance predominate, making class treatment inappropriate. For breach of warranty claims, the central question of whether the product was inherently defective at the time of sale is common to all class members, and a manifested injury is not required; therefore, common issues predominate. For negligence claims, a manifested injury is a required element, so the class must be limited to only those who have suffered actual property damage, but for that limited class, common issues regarding Zurn's knowledge and the product's defectiveness predominate.



Analysis:

This decision provides a clear example of the claim-by-claim analysis required for class certification under Rule 23. It highlights how the substantive elements of different legal theories—contract (warranty), tort (negligence), and statutory fraud—directly impact the predominance inquiry. The ruling establishes that breach of warranty claims are often more suitable for class treatment in product defect cases because the 'injury' occurs at the time of sale with the delivery of a non-conforming good, obviating the need for a manifested defect for class membership. In contrast, it reaffirms that tort claims require a manifested injury and fraud-based claims often founder on the need for individualized proof of reliance, creating a significant hurdle for class certification.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query In re Zurn Pex Plumbing Products Liability Litigation (2010) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for In re Zurn Pex Plumbing Products Liability Litigation