Whirlpool Loses Bid to Decertify Moldy Washer Class Action Lawsuit

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.

Yesterday, Whirlpool Corp.’s motion to decertify a Class of Ohio consumers who claim that their Whirlpool brand washing machines contained a mold-producing agent was denied by the presiding Ohio federal judge, who ruled that Whirlpool’s objections to the proposed Class were resolved with the Class modification.

When the Whirlpool class action lawsuit was originally filed in 2010, the company immediately pushed back against the Class definition, which would have involved washing machine models that had allegedly already been modified to address the alleged mold-producing defect. While the original Class definition certified by the court may been “overbroad,” U.S. District Judge Christopher A. Boyko disagreed with and rejected Whirlpool’s argument by additionally limiting Whirlpool brand washing machine models that containing different designs or product features.

Another contention filed by Whirlpool against the moldy washer class action lawsuit is that “the certified Class is too broad because it includes Duet owners who allegedly have not experienced a mold problem and are pleased with the performance of their Duets. Satisfied consumers lack anything in common with consumers who may have misused their machines and complain of a mold problem[.]”

However, this argument did not convince Judge Boyko to decertify the Class of Ohio Whirlpool washing machine unit consumers. In fact, Judge Boyko pointed to an earlier decision by the Sixth Circuit to support his ruling.

“The Sixth Circuit affirmed that ‘[t]he basic question in the litigation – were the machines defective in permitting mold to accumulate and generate noxious odors? – is common to the entire … Class, although the answer may vary with the differences in design.’ … This circumstance remains true, and the Court’s modification of the Class definition has only increased the precision with which trial of all Class Members’ claims together ‘will generate common answers that are likely to drive resolution of the lawsuit.’”

Thus, with the Sixth Circuit’s reaffirmation of the proposed and certified Class of Ohio consumers, Judge Boyko denied Whirlpool’s bid to decertify the moldy washer class action lawsuit. The judge also emphasized the Sixth Circuit court’s findings that determined that even if the mold defect was not specifically experienced by every single Class Member, these individuals would still experience a decreased value of their washer unit. If a Class Member’s Whirlpool product contains the alleged design that causes the odor and mold presence and can prove it, then their Whirlpool unit will have lost significant monetary value.

Judge Boyko’s decision is not the first denial Whirlpool has experienced. Earlier this year, the Supreme Court refused to hear the home appliance company’s argument challenging the Sixth Circuit’s ruling on the certification of the moldy washer class action lawsuit.

The first trial of the Whirlpool moldy washer class action lawsuit is set to take place on Oct. 7 of this year in Ohio federal court.

The plaintiffs are represented by Jonathan D. Selbin, Jason L. Lichtman and Mark P. Chalos of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP; Robert T. Glickman of McCarthy Lebit Crystal & Liffman Co. LPA; Steven A. Schwartz and Alison G. Gushue of Chimicles & Tikellis LLP; James C. Shah and Nathan Zipperian of Shepherd Finkelman Miller & Shah LLP; Jonathan Shub of Seeger Weiss LLP; Richard J. Burke of the Complex Litigation Group LLC; and Mark Schlachet of the Law Office of Mark Schlachet.

The Whirlpool Moldy Washer 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.