McNamara v. Nomeco Building Specialties, Inc.
26 F. Supp. 2d 1168 (1998)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A cause of action for breach of an implied warranty under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act is only available against a supplier if that supplier has also issued a written warranty or entered into a service contract with the consumer for the same product. The Act does not create a standalone federal cause of action for breach of state-law implied warranties.
Facts:
- Plaintiffs Michael and Elizabeth McNamara owned a home on a lake and were experiencing problems with their bay window fogging over with exterior condensation, which obscured their view.
- They contacted Donald Bergeson, a sales representative for Nomeco Building Specialties, Inc. ('Nomeco'), to purchase a replacement window that would be free from condensation.
- Bergeson claimed to have consulted with a representative from the window manufacturer, Pella, and recommended Pella's 'Smart Sash III' window.
- Bergeson orally guaranteed the McNamaras that the new Pella window would not have a condensation problem.
- Relying on this oral representation, the McNamaras purchased the Smart Sash III window from Nomeco.
- Nomeco did not provide the McNamaras with any written warranty in connection with the sale.
- After installation, the new window experienced the same condensation problems as the old one.
Procedural Posture:
- The Plaintiffs, Michael and Elizabeth McNamara, filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota against Defendant Nomeco Building Specialties, Inc. and another defendant.
- The complaint included causes of action for breach of contract, breach of express warranty, and violations of the Minnesota Consumer Fraud Act and the federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.
- Defendant Nomeco filed a Motion to Dismiss, or alternatively for Summary Judgment, on the consumer fraud and Magnuson-Moss Act claims.
- Because the court considered materials outside the pleadings, the motion was treated as one for Summary Judgment.
- The motion was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge for a Report and Recommendation.
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 Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act create a federal cause of action for a breach of an implied warranty when the supplier has not issued a written warranty for the consumer product?
Opinions:
Majority - Erickson, United States Magistrate Judge
No. The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act does not create a federal private cause of action for breach of an implied warranty in the absence of an accompanying written warranty from the same supplier. The court reconciled a tension between two provisions of the Act, § 2310(d) and § 2308(a). While § 2310(d) broadly grants a cause of action for breach of an 'implied warranty,' the Act's definition of 'implied warranty' in § 2301(7) explicitly states it is modified by § 2308. Section 2308(a), in turn, prohibits a supplier from disclaiming an implied warranty only if the supplier 'makes any written warranty' or enters into a service contract. To give effect to § 2308(a) and avoid rendering it superfluous, the court held that the existence of a written warranty is a condition precedent to bringing a federal claim for breach of an implied warranty under the Act. The legislative history supports this, showing Congress was primarily concerned with deceptive written warranties that used fine print to take away state-law implied warranty rights, not with creating a new federal scheme to supplant state UCC laws.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies that the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act's protections are not a universal substitute for state law warranty claims. It establishes the Act as a specific federal remedy triggered primarily by the existence of a written warranty, aimed at preventing suppliers from deceptively disclaiming implied warranties. Consequently, consumers whose claims against a supplier are based solely on oral representations or state-law implied warranties, without a corresponding written warranty from that supplier, must pursue their remedies in state court under the UCC or other state consumer protection statutes. This ruling maintains a clear division between state and federal jurisdiction over warranty claims.
Unlock the full brief for McNamara v. Nomeco Building Specialties, Inc.