Mattress Firm Class Action Says Sealy Warranty Claims Unfairly Denied

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.

Sealy and Mattress Firm have been shirking their warranty duties to customers who bought defective mattresses, a Kansas man claims.

Plaintiff Daniel Rabin says defendants Mattress Firm Inc. and Tempur Sealy International Inc. have been making and selling defective mattresses, then fail to honor their own warranty. He is seeking redress for the defendants’ alleged breach of warranty under federal and Kansas consumer protection laws.

According to this Sealy and Mattress Firm class action lawsuit, the two defendants have been “manufacturing and selling mattresses with known consistent defects in quality and workmanship … which cause indentations or sagging of the mattresses.”

Rabin alleges the warranty claim process set up between Sealy and Mattress Firm is so inefficient as to be practically useless. Claimants are made to go to “extraordinary lengths” to make a successful claim without having to submit to an inspection.

For claims where an inspection is required, Sealy and Mattress firm impose an inspection fee that was not mentioned at the point of sale and that Rabin says is illegal.

The plaintiff says Sealy and Mattress Firm unlawfully use damage that is not covered by the warranty as an excuse to deny valid warranty claims. Rabin argues the companies’ warranty against defects in materials and workmanship is not voided by spills, burns, or misuse of the mattress by the purchaser.

Rabin says he purchased a Sealy mattress from a Mattress Firm store in Overland Park, Kan. in January 2012. The mattress began to sag excessively within its 10-year warranty period, he alleges, so he raised the issue with the Mattress Firm store where he bought it and made a warranty claim.

He says he received a replacement mattress, but only after much difficulty and at additional expense. The new mattress turned out to have the same sagging defect as the first one, he claims.

Rabin says he made a second warranty claim, but this time Mattress Firm and Sealy denied it. The defendants refused to repair or replace the mattress, did not provide an adequate explanation for the denial, and ultimately refused to respond to Rabin’s further inquiries, he claims.

Rabin is proposing to represent six different plaintiff Classes. The first two Classes, seeking injunctive relief from Sealy and Mattress Firm, would cover all persons who purchased a Sealy mattress on or after Jan. 12, 2016 and who still own that mattress.

The second two Classes would cover such purchasers who made a warranty claim that Sealy either denied or failed to respond to without justification. The last two Classes would represent Class Members whose warranty claims were rejected and who bought their mattresses in Kansas.

He is asking for a court injunction requiring Sealy and Mattress Firm to abide by the terms of their own warranty and a declaration that damage not covered by the warranty does not void the warranty as to defects that should be covered. He also seeks an award of compensatory damages, restitution and disgorgement, attorney fees and costs of litigation.

Rabin is represented by attorney Benjamin N. Hutnick of Berman & Rabin PA.

The Sealy Mattress Firm Breach of Warranty Class Action Lawsuit is Rabin v. Tempur Sealy International Inc. and Mattress Firm Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-02619, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas.