Conair Hair Dryer Fire Class Action Lawsuit Gets Class Cert.

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.

Last week, a California federal judge approved a motion to certify a nationwide Class of consumers who claim that their Conair hair dryers caught fire while in use. The judge allowed claims of breach of implied warranty to proceed, but denied certification of allegations of strict product liability.

Lead plaintiff Cynthia L. Czuhaj claims in the class action lawsuit that the Conair model 259 InfinitiPro 1875-watt hair dryer had defects involving the cord and coil that led to the dryer catching fire. According to U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez, the claims that Conair breached implied warranty was a common question among putative Class Members appropriate for nationwide Class certification.

While the nationwide Class was allowed to proceed to certification with breach of implied warranty claims, Judge Benitez asserted that the differences in state strict product liability laws were too substantial for Class certification for strict liability claims. He also noted that deficiencies in the lead plaintiff’s class action lawsuit led to the decision to deny granting strict product liability claims.

As for the request to certify subclasses, again some were approved while others were not. A California subclass claiming violations of the state’s False Advertising Law, Consumer Legal Remedies Act and Song-Beverly Warranty Act was certified along with a New York subclass claiming violations of New York’s General Business Law. Judge Benitez denied Class certification to Pennsylvania and Ohio subclasses.

The original Conair hair dryer class action lawsuit was filed by Czuhaj in 2013 and later a total of five women came forth to assert that their hair dryers posed a safety hazard as well and sought to represent a nationwide Class and state-specific subclasses.

Czuhaj claims that her a Conair Infiniti Pro 182-watt Salon Performance hair dryer began emitting flames from the device where the cord connected to the device while in use. After the flames shot out, she says she dropped the hair dryer and it ended up scorching her carpet. The device finally stopped malfunctioning when she unplugged the dryer, Czuhaj asserts in the Conair class action lawsuit.

Czuhaj alleges that she had used the hair dryer with no issues for 10 months before the incident as part of her daily or every-other-day routine. She further claims that despite the dryer being plugged in to a safety outlet with a ground fault circuit interrupter and the product included an appliance leakage current interrupted, the hair dryer did not turn off on its own and she had to remove the plug from the outlet to make the hair dryer turn off.

The request for Class certification was filed at the end of September and the Class has been certified as follows: “All persons who purchased either a model 259 or 279 Infiniti Pro 1875 Watt hair dryer, between August 15, 2009 and the present, sold by Defendant Conair Corporation directly or through numerous retailers for primarily personal, family, or household purposes, and not for resale.”

Conair consumers who meet nationwide Class eligibility as defined and who are California and New York residents are also eligible for subclass certification.

The plaintiffs are represented by Jerusalem F. Beligan of Bisnar & Chase, Jennifer Lynn Connor, Jeff Geraci, Isam C. Khoury and Michael D. Singer of Cohelan Khoury & Singer and Katherine J. Odenbreit of Hunt Ortmann Palffy Nieves Darling & Mah Inc.

The Conair Hair Dryer Class Action Lawsuit is Czuhaj v. Conair Corporation, et al., Case No. 3:13-cv-01901, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.

UPDATE: On Mar. 30, 2016, a federal judge issued a ruling partially decertifying a Class of consumers in this Conair class action lawsuit. The judge said that the differences in the implied warranty laws for various states led to too many individualized questions.

UPDATE 2: On July 18, 2016, plaintiffs fought back against a motion by Conair to further narrow the subclasses. 

UPDATE 3: On Nov. 4, 2016, the parties in a class action lawsuit alleging defects in Conair hair dryers causes them to catch fire, proposed a $5.4 million settlement deal.

UPDATE 4: The Conair Infiniti Pro Hair Dry Class Action Settlement is now open! Click here to file a claim.