Courtney Jorstad  |  May 7, 2015

Category: Consumer News

Top Class Actions’s website and social media posts use affiliate links. If you make a purchase using such links, we may receive a commission, but it will not result in any additional charges to you. Please review our Affiliate Link Disclosure for more information.

Samsung class action lawsuitWhile a New Jersey federal judge has dismissed breach of warranty allegations against Samsung over allegedly faulty washing machines, he has kept the fraud claims against the electronics company.

U.S. District Judge William J. Martini said in his Tuesday ruling that he agreed with Samsung that the warranties for the washing machines had run out when the plaintiffs claim that they started having problems, but disagreed with the company’s argument that they had not made specific fraud claims. Judge Martini granted in part and denied in part Samsung’s motion for summary judgement.

Two California plaintiffs, Colleen Kennedy and David Foster, had filed the faulty washing machine class action lawsuit against Samsung in August 2014, alleging that not long after the one-year warranty that came with the washing machine was up, the drain pump in the washer broke causing the washing machine leaked, which resulted in an ankle-deep flood in their house.

Kennedy and Foster allege that the leak was the result of a defect that exists in a series of washing machines made by Samsung, which is caused by “the design and use of a flimsy plastic housing covering the drain pump which breaks and pulls the poorly connected drain hose off the machine resulting in the flooding of homes, and causing electrical malfunctioning.”

In addition, they allege in their Samsung defective washing machine class action lawsuit that “the defect is exacerbated by Samsung’s inability to provide replacement parts for the housing covering the drain pump, and broken mounts for the motor.”

Kennedy claims that she did some research on the internet and found other Samsung washing machine owners who had experienced the same leaking and flooding problem because of the allegedly faulty drain pump housing.

While Samsung said that it would not refund or replace the entire washing machine, it did agree “to replace the plastic housing with a sturdier, redesigned metal drain pump housing, all at no charge.”

However, when it came time for the repair, “a metal housing could not be acquired,” and “the repair was completed with another plastic pump housing,” which leaves Kennedy and Foster in the position of possibly having another leak and flood.

According to the Samsung class action lawsuit, “plaintiffs allege that Samsung was aware of the drain pump housing defect at the time of sale but concealed the defect from customers.” In addition, they claim that Samsung knew that the alleged defect could not be repaired “and refused to replace the defective machines or refund defrauded customers.”

Foster and Kennedy are charging Samsung with violating the California Unfair Competition Law (UCL), the California False Advertising Law (FAL), California Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, and breach of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

Judge Martini has kept the first three charges and dismissed the last three, related to breach of warranty.

He dismissed the warranty claims because “it is undisputed that the plaintiffs did not put Samsung on notice of their problem until after the expiration of the express one-year warranty,” implied warranties last as long as express warranties, and the MMWA is dependent on “state law warranty claims.”

The New Jersey federal judge kept the fraud charges, saying that “the complaint alleges that Samsung concealed the fact that the washing machines had a latent, unfixable design defect — a flimsy drain pump housing that breaks and frays wires, causing flooding and attendant risk of electrocution. This is enough information for Samsung to respond to the complaint with appropriate admissions or denials.”

In that vein, he said he kept the CLRA because of the alleged safety risk. The FAL remained because Samsung had advertised that the washing machine could be kept on the second floor of a house, which lulled reasonable consumers into believing that “the washing machine would not leave owners subject to imminent and repeated flooding.”

The UCL charges were kept because of the risk of injury due to the apparent “repeated risk of flooding, not simply that the machine broke one time.

“Plaintiffs plausibly allege that if they had known they were purchasing imminent and repeated flooding along with a washing machine, they would never have ‘surrendered’ their money for that machine,” Martini adds.

The plaintiffs are represented by Bruce H. Nagel and Randee M. Matloff of Nagel Rice LLP and Michael S. Kasanoff.

Samsung is represented by Paul Myung Han, Sean Neafsey, Philip M. Oliss, Bruce Khula and Mark C. Dosker of Squire Patton Boggs LLP.

The Samsung Faulty Washing Machine Class Action Lawsuit is Kennedy et al. v. Samsung Electronics America Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-04987, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.

We tell you about cash you can claim EVERY WEEK! Sign up for our free newsletter.

5 thoughts onJudge Keeps Samsung Fraud Charges Over Faulty Washing Machines

  1. Laura Stinnett says:

    So, I just came across this thread and have had many problems with my washer as well.
    We have had them come out 6-7 times to repair it. It is no longer under warranty now, what to do?
    Any ideas? We paid a lot for this set and really don’t feel we should have to continue to pay for it.

  2. Eric says:

    I had the same problems with my washing machine and it caused thousands of dollars worth of damage. now I’m having more issues with the spin cycle adding more time to the timer would not go below nine minutes. Meanwhile my homeowner’s insurance has doubled in cost thank you Samsung

  3. Vince Ray says:

    This just happened to us as well. Flooded the house. I did a temp fix with cable ties and a screw on hose clamp. Let’s sue these chumps.

  4. Gina Laflamme says:

    I had the same problem. I live in Québec, Canada. It seems that model is no more on the market here in Canada. I bought my washer-dryer in December 2012. The drain pump has just broken. Almost three years later. I know now, after reading the reviews, that Samsung was aware of that problem. Why they didn’t make a recall on this model or get in touch with their clients who bought it and change the piece. I’m sure that they have this kind of information. We found the piece, but not at Samsung. We will have to change ourselves, but I will try to get my money back for this piece.

  5. rich peters says:

    I have Samsung top loader that’s not even a year old and its the worst piece of appliance i have ever owned… it gets stuck in cycle, doesn’t wash my clothes, doesnt work with large loads of clothes…etc

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. By submitting your comment and contact information, you agree to receive marketing emails from Top Class Actions regarding this and/or similar lawsuits or settlements, and/or to be contacted by an attorney or law firm to discuss the details of your potential case at no charge to you if you qualify. Required fields are marked *

Please note: Top Class Actions is not a settlement administrator or law firm. Top Class Actions is a legal news source that reports on class action lawsuits, class action settlements, drug injury lawsuits and product liability lawsuits. Top Class Actions does not process claims and we cannot advise you on the status of any class action settlement claim. You must contact the settlement administrator or your attorney for any updates regarding your claim status, claim form or questions about when payments are expected to be mailed out.