Whirlpool Moldy Washer Class Action Lawsuit Won’t Be Modified

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.

Plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit against Whirlpool Corp. over alleged defects that cause its front-load washing machines to grow mold were denied a motion to modify their Class to exclude those consumers whose machines were altered to incorporate design changes in 2009.

U.S. District Judge Christopher A. Boyko denied the motion on April 28, saying he couldn’t find a sufficient reason to make the changes plaintiffs requested.

“Plaintiffs have not demonstrated good cause for modification of the Class definition at this juncture,” Boyko wrote in his opinion. “Furthermore, the Court agrees with Defendant that, in the interest of judicial economy; in order to consider the expert testimony as touched upon at the oral hearing; and in consideration of the confusion likely caused by multiple or repeated notices to class members, the Motion is denied at this time.”

The plaintiffs had sought to alter the Class in the Whirlpool washing machine class action lawsuit in order to align it more closely to the Class in a similar class action lawsuit, Larry Butler, et al. v. Sears Roebuck & Co., in which the defendant showed that a number of design changes were implemented in 2009 to counteract the moldy odors the plaintiffs say the machines cause.

“The Court will re-visit this issue when it considers dispositive motions and the motion for decertification which are scheduled to be filed in May and June,” Judge Boyko concluded.

The class action lawsuits against Sears and Whirlpool assert that 21 models of Whirlpool’s high-efficiency, front-loading Duet clothes washers sold by the two companies since 2001 contain a design defect. The moldy washer class action lawsuits alleged that the front-loading washing machines did not work properly, resulting in mold growth and a musty smell in clothes and in the appliances themselves. Sears and Whirlpool insist only a small number of the washing machines had similar problems, and the vast majority of consumers weren’t harmed.

Whirlpool said that the plaintiffs’ motion to modify the Class was insufficient, because doing so would contradict the allegation that Whirlpool’s washing machines had a uniform defect, and that modifying the class this way would reduce the class by 90,000 in Ohio, which would require “extensive and expensive notice” to those class members.

In February, the U.S. Supreme Court said it wouldn’t hear Whirlpool, Sears and BSH Home Appliance Corp.’s challenges to Class certification rulings in three class action lawsuits over defective washing machines, although it had dismissed decisions from lower courts upholding certification in two of the cases last year. Court documents indicated BSH, which makes Bosch washers, had petitioned the court in hopes it would consider the Ninth Circuit’s refusal to review a California federal court’s order certifying four classes of consumers.

The plaintiffs are represented by Jonathan D. Selbin, Jason L. Lichtman and Mark P. Chalos of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, and Robert T. Glickman of McCarthy Lebit Crystal & Liffman Co. LPA.

The Whirlpool Washing Machine Defect Class Action Lawsuit is In re Whirlpool Corp. Front-Loading Washer Products Liability Litigation, Case No. 1:08-wp-65000, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio.

UPDATE: On Oct. 30, 2014, a jury decided in favor of Whirlpool, finding that the company did not negligently design the front-loading washing machines and did not breach its warranty to consumers. Attorneys for the plaintiffs say they plan to appeal the verdict.