Wallis v. Ford Motor Co.
208 S.W.3d 153, 362 Ark. 317 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A claim for common-law fraud or a private action under the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act requires an allegation of actual damage, which is not satisfied by a mere diminution in product value due to an unmanifested defect.
Facts:
- D.R. 'Buddy' Wallis purchased or leased a Ford Explorer, model year 1991 through 2001.
- Wallis alleged that Ford Motor Company knowingly concealed a dangerous design defect in the Explorer that created a propensity for the vehicle to roll over.
- Wallis claimed that Ford's concealment led consumers to purchase or lease Explorers at prices far exceeding their actual value.
- The alleged design defect in Wallis's Explorer never manifested; the vehicle did not roll over, malfunction, or cause any personal injury or property damage.
- The sole injury Wallis claimed was the 'substantially diminished value' of the vehicle resulting from the existence of the hidden defect.
Procedural Posture:
- D.R. 'Buddy' Wallis filed a class-action lawsuit against Ford Motor Company in an Arkansas circuit court, the state's court of first instance.
- Ford filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Ark. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
- The circuit court granted Ford's motion to dismiss, ruling that Wallis had failed to state a legally cognizable injury or damage.
- Wallis, as appellant, appealed the dismissal to the Arkansas Court of Appeals, an intermediate appellate court.
- The Court of Appeals certified the case to the Arkansas Supreme Court, the state's highest court, due to it being an issue of first impression and public interest.
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 claim for fraud or deceptive trade practices, based solely on the diminished value of a product with an unmanifested defect, state a legally cognizable injury under Arkansas law?
Opinions:
Majority - Annabelle Clinton Imber
No. A claim for fraud or a private cause of action under the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (ADTPA) is not legally cognizable where the only injury alleged is the diminished value of a product due to a defect that has not manifested. For common-law fraud, damages are an essential element. Arkansas courts have awarded 'benefit-of-the-bargain' damages only in cases where the product received actually manifests a difference from what was promised, such as a wrecked car being sold as new. An alleged 'propensity' for future failure is too speculative and uncertain to constitute a legally cognizable injury. Similarly, the ADTPA allows a private cause of action only for 'actual damage or injury.' This requires a higher standard than the 'ascertainable loss' the Attorney General can pursue. Therefore, a claim based only on economic loss from diminished value, without any product malfunction or manifestation of the defect, fails to allege the 'actual damage' required by the statute.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a significant precedent in Arkansas products liability and consumer protection law by adopting the 'no-injury' rule. It clarifies that latent or unmanifested defects that only diminish a product's resale value do not constitute a legally sufficient injury for claims of fraud or private actions under the ADTPA. This raises the pleading standard for plaintiffs in class-action lawsuits, effectively preventing 'stigma damage' claims where the product has performed as expected. The ruling protects manufacturers from liability for potential, but unrealized, product failures and forces plaintiffs to wait until an actual malfunction or harm occurs.
Unlock the full brief for Wallis v. Ford Motor Co.