Electrolux Oven Class Action Moves Forward With Fewer Claims

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 federal judge has tossed some claims from a class action lawsuit alleging certain Electrolux manufactured gas ovens overheat due to a defective thermostat.

U.S. District Court Judge Lawrence J. O’Neill trimmed the majority of the class action claims, but retained allegations based on Electrolux’s warrantee violations under the Magnuson-­Moss Warranty Act and Song­-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.

Additionally, the plaintiffs will be permitted to amend their complaint regarding the other claims.

Lead plaintiffs, Shelly and Robert Stewart, alleged in their class action lawsuit that their $2,000 Kenmore Elite gas oven manufactured by Electrolux broke the first time they used the self-cleaning function on the appliance. The plaintiffs said they were instructed by the repair person not to use the function because it broke the thermostat in the high-end oven.

According to the Electrolux class action lawsuit, Electrolux knew or should have known of the defect and the Kenmore Elite oven failed to perform its basic function, cooking food, because of the alleged defect. The plaintiffs claimed Electrolux was in breach of warranty, received unjust enrichment, and fraudulently concealed the defect, in addition to being in violation of federal and California consumer protection laws.

Judge O’Neill pointed out that the plaintiffs had claimed in their class action that design and manufacturing defects in the thermostat rendered the Kenmore Elite oven unable to perform its main function – to cook food.

“The inability of the oven to properly heat and cook food after the thermostat was broken by the self­-cleaning function rendered the oven unfit for its ordinary purpose,” states the order.

The judge said that the alleged design and manufacturing defect claim was enough to support the class action claim under the warranty for the oven.

“Here, engagement of the self­-cleaning function rendered the oven unusable until the thermostat was replaced, and any use of the self-cleaning cycle after that would have allegedly resulted in complete failure of the oven again due to the broken thermostat,” said the court order.

The judge did nix the class action lawsuit’s claims for strict liability and fraudulent concealment. While the judge noted that the plaintiffs allege more than solely an economic loss, the other losses were too “vague and conclusory to credit as true.” However, the judge allowed the plaintiffs to amend their claims.

The Electrolux class action lawsuit claims based on fraud were also tossed by the judge who noted that the allegations lacked specificity.

“Plaintiffs’ claims sounding in fraud…lack the requisite specificity in alleging Electrolux had actual knowledge of the purported defect in its ovens,” noted the order. “The customer complaints on a consumer affairs website have not been linked to Electrolux to show how Electrolux would have necessarily been aware of these complaints, and the allegations regarding systems or testing that Electrolux may or may not have had in place lack specificity and detail about what testing was performed, when such testing was done, or any allegation showing that complaints or defects were reported to Electrolux during the period before Plaintiffs purchased their oven.”

The lead plaintiffs are represented by Crystal Foley, Paul J. Hanly Jr. and Mitchell M. Breit of Simmons Hanly Conroy LLC and Gregory F. Coleman, Adam A. Edwards, Mark E. Silvey and Lisa A. White of Greg Coleman Law PC.

The Electrolux Overheating Oven Class Action Lawsuit is Shelly Stewart and Robert Stewart v. Electrolux Home Products, Case No. 1:17­-cv-­01213, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California.