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.
A New Jersey federal judge has dismissed a proposed class action lawsuit that claims a Honeywell water heater valve possesses a defect that causes water heaters to leak.
U.S. District Judge Susan D. Wigenton dismissed the case because the plaintiffs aimed to represent Classes of consumers in multiple states, and the judge analyzed the claims as they applied to individual state law.
She determined that the claims brought forward by Loretta Butera and Greg Holden had not fulfilled requirements under Tennessee and California law.
According to Judge Wigenton, the law of each consumers’ state should determine their claims — in the case of Butera’s claims, Tennessee laws should apply, and in the case of Holden’s claims, California laws should apply, said the judge.
The judge explained that Butera argued that the allegedly defective valves were “not reasonably safe for their ordinary and intended use,” and Honeywell did not sufficiently warn customers about the defect.
However, Judge Wigenton says that Tennessee law requires a plaintiff to establish that a product in question “was defective and unreasonably dangerous at the time the product left the control of the manufacturer.” The judge said that Butera had not sufficiently established that, because she had not provided enough facts to prove that the valve was defective and dangerous.
Butera claimed that the valve was made of plastic and the porousness of plastic made the valve likely to deteriorate, but the judge stated that the fact that the valve was made of plastic was not enough to prove that the valve was then defective.
Moving on to Holden’s claims, the judge determined that Holden had not fulfilled California state law requirements in presenting his claim. Holden alleged that Honeywell breached express warranty and implied warranty, violated strict product liability, and was negligent in selling defective valves.
Similar to her analysis of Butera’s claims, Judge Wigenton said that Holden had not sufficiently established that the valve was not fit for ordinary use.
Judge Wigenton pointed to the fact that Holden said that the valve began leaking six years after he purchased it, after the warranty had expired. According to the judge, Holden’s claims were “insufficient for the court to infer the the valve did not meet this minimum level” of functionality.
Additionally, the judge stated that Holden did not sufficiently allege that Honeywell owed him a legal duty to warn him of the defect, saying that the company should not be required to warn consumers that a valve could leak after six years of use.
Have you ever experienced a water heater defect? Share your story in the comments below.
Butera and Holden are represented by Michael M. Breit and Paul J. Hanly Jr. of Simmons Hanley Conroy LLC and by Gregory F. Coleman, Adam Edwards, Mark E. Silvey and Lisa A. White of Greg Coleman Law PC.
The Honeywell Water Heater Class Action Lawsuit is Butera, et al. v. Honeywell International Inc., Case No. 2:18-cv-13417, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.
ATTORNEY ADVERTISING
Top Class Actions is a Proud Member of the American Bar Association
LEGAL INFORMATION IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE
Top Class Actions Legal Statement
©2008 – 2024 Top Class Actions® LLC
Various Trademarks held by their respective owners
This website is not intended for viewing or usage by European Union citizens.
