Old Republic Home Protection Class Action Lawsuit Tossed Again

A California federal judge has rejected for the second time a proposed class action lawsuit accusing Old Republic Home Protection Co. of failing to honor its home warranty plans, telling the plaintiff he will have to find evidence of contract language that a reasonable consumer would rely upon and which does not constitute “puffery.”

In his first class action lawsuit against Old Republic Home Protection, plaintiff Michael D. Friedman alleged that he purchased a home warranty plan in 2008 in order to protect against expensive repairs that his air conditioning might require, and renewed it again in 2009 and 2010. After some six calls to repair the defective device, contractors dispatched by Old Republic reportedly installed a similar system but of a lesser value. The company then allegedly cancelled Friedman’s plan.

Judge Andrew J. Guilford had previously trimmed several counts from the class action lawsuit filed by Friedman, who alleges that Old Republic Home Protection Company breached its contract in warranting various home furnishings, including violations of California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act, but had allowed the plaintiff a second chance at two other claims.

In a Dec. 6 ruling, Judge Guilford granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss Friedman’s amended claims, ruling that the language Friedman allegedly relied on and which he said resulted in promissory fraud still did not meet the standards required under the “reasonable consumer” standard. The judge said terms such as “qualified contractors, “unbiased service” and “fair and reasonable rates” were not false statements but rather “puffer, either not capable of falsity or statements that a reasonable consumer would rely on.”

However, this section can still be improved, the judge said, allowing Friedman to amend that portion of the complaint for another review of alleged promissory fraud.

The other counts, including fraud by concealment and the previously dismissed counts regarding the Consumer Legal Remedies Acts may no longer be included. Judge Friedman decided that the fraud by concealment count also failed because the company did not have a duty to disclose the practices Friedman cited. The case law for disclosures by corporate officers is relatively narrow, the decision noted, and the court was loath to expand upon them in this case.

Friedman is represented by class action lawyers Francis A. Bottini Jr. of Bottini & Bottini Inc. and Keith M. Cochran of Chapin Fitzgerald LLP.

The Old Republic Home Protection Class Action Lawsuit is Michael Friedman, et al. v. Old Republic Home Protection Co., Case No. 12-cv-01833, U.S. District Court, Central District of California.