Aprigliano v. Am. Honda Motor Co., Case No. 13–22066–CIV.

• Decision Date: 28 October 2013
• Docket Number: Case No. 13–22066–CIV.
• Citation: 979 F.Supp.2d 1331
• Parties: Thomas APRIGLIANO, et al., Plaintiffs, v. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida

979 F.Supp.2d 1331

Thomas APRIGLIANO, et al., Plaintiffs,

v.AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., Defendant.

Case No. 13–22066–CIV.

United States District Court, S.D. Florida.

Oct. 28, 2013.

Tamra Carsten Givens, J. Andrew Meyer, Morgan & Morgan Complex Litigation Group, Tampa, FL, for Plaintiffs.

Cornelius A. Vandenberg, Eric S. Mattson, Michael C. Andolina, Sidley Austin, LLP, Chicago, IL, John Carl Seipp, Jr., Donald Arthur Blackwell, Seipp, Flick & Hosley, LLP, Miami, FL, for Defendant.

ORDER

CECILIA M. ALTONAGA, District Judge.

THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Defendant, American Honda Motor Co., Inc.'s (“Honda['s]”) Motion to Dismiss ... (“Motion”) [ECF No. 30], filed August 30, 2013. On September 16, 2013, Plaintiffs, Thomas Aprigliano (“Aprigliano”) and Thomas Lucci (“Lucci”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), filed a Response in Opposition ... (“Response”) [ECF No. 31]. Honda filed its Reply ... (“Reply”) [ECF No. 32] on September 26, 2013. The Court has carefully reviewed the parties' written submissions, the record, and applicable law.

I. BACKGROUND¹

Honda manufactures motorcycles for sale to the public. ( See Am. Compl. ¶ 8). One such motorcycle is the Honda Gold Wing, introduced to the market in 1974 and modified in 2001 when model GL 1800 was introduced. ( See id. ¶ 9). The Gold Wing GL 1800 (“GL 1800”) contains a five-speed manual transmission that uses a sequential gearbox. ( See id. ¶ 10). The GL 1800 is marketed as a luxury touring motorcycle and is referred to as a “gentle giant” that offers an “unbelievably smooth, quiet[,] and vibration[-]free” ride. ( Id. ¶ 13). Among other boasts, Honda states the GL 1800 sets “the touring motorcycle standard of the world,” and is “in a class of its own.” ( Id.).

However, the GL 1800 suffers from defective design and machining, causing the transmission to suddenly drop gears on its own—a phenomenon known as “ghost shifting.” ( Id. ¶ 14). This defect in the GL 1800 makes it dangerous and unsuitable for the long-distance riding for which the motorcycle is advertised. ( See id. ¶ 15).

Honda has been aware of the GL 1800's defective condition since the time of manufacture. ( See id. ¶ 16). Additionally, numerous GL 1800 owners have filed complaints with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (“NHTSA”) regarding the ghost shifting problem. ( See id.). Rather than fix the problem, Honda concealed the defect by assigning the blame for the deficiency on “bent shift forks and other alleged causes which are either symptoms of or unrelated to the cause of the actual defect.” ( Id. ¶ 42). Even after contacting Honda and its authorized repair stores to complain about the issues with the GL 1800, Plaintiffs were told the motorcycles were not defective. ( See id. ¶ 18). Honda failed to disclose and concealed the true nature of the defect—poor design and/or machining of the motorcycle's gears. ( See id. ¶ 19).

Prior to making their decision to purchase GL 1800s, Plaintiffs believed the motorcycle was suitable for long-distance touring. ( See id. ¶¶ 24, 34). In April 2008, Lucci purchased his pre-owned 2001 GL 1800 from J.R. Harris Trikes Sales of Inverness, an authorized Honda dealership.( See id. ¶ 34). Lucci's GL 1800 had approximately 39,000 miles on it at the time of purchase. ( See id.). Similarly, Aprigliano purchased a pre-owned 2008 GL 1800 from Seminole PowerSports, an authorized Honda dealership, in April 2011. ( See id. ¶ 24). Aprigliano had seen printed and internet advertising materials regarding the motorcycle's suitability for long distance touring before he purchased his GL 1800. ( See id.). Aprigliano's GL 1800 had approximately 3,000 miles on it at the time of purchase. ( See id.).

The factory warranty ² included with both motorcycles states, “American Honda warrants to the first retail purchaser ... and each subsequent owner that the motorcycle is free from defects in materials and workmanship for the period stated below,” which in the case of any GL series motorcycle, is “three (3) years.” (Honda Motorcycle Warranties, 1991 and Subsequent Years (“1991 Honda Warranties”) 6 [ECF No. 30–1]; Honda Motorcycle Warranties, 2008 and Previous (“2008 Honda Warranties”) 6 [ECF No. 30–2] ). The 1991 and 2008 Warranties guarantee “Honda will repair or replace, at its option, any part that is found defective in material or workmanship under normal use.” (1991 Honda Warranties 6; 2008 Honda Warranties 6). The factory warranties on Plaintiffs' motorcycles had already expired by the time Plaintiffs purchased their GL 1800s. ( See Am. Compl. ¶ 25; see also Resp. 3).

Shortly after Aprigliano purchased his GL 1800, he began experiencing “ghost shifting difficulties” routinely while using his motorcycle, especially while riding in fifth gear. (Am. Compl. ¶ 29). In December 2011, Aprigliano took his GL 1800 to Seminole PowerSports for repair and was advised by a mechanic that there are often GL 1800s in the repair shop with the same problem due to a known manufacturing and design defect in the GL 1800 transmission. ( See id. ¶ 30). “Honda informed Aprigliano that the factory warranty, even if in effect, would not have covered the repair.” ( Id. ¶ 31). After several months of repair to the GL 1800's transmission, Aprigliano received his motorcycle from the mechanic and paid him $3,361.53 for the repairs. ( See id. ¶ 32). Honda refused to reimburse Aprigliano for the repair costs. ( See id.).

Lucci also experienced “ghost shifting difficulties” with his GL 1800, most often while riding in fifth gear. ( Id. ¶ 38). In January 2012, Lucci took his GL 1800 to Seminole PowerSports to have the transmission repaired. ( See id. ¶ 39). A mechanic informed Lucci there were other GL 1800s experiencing the same problem. ( See id.). Lucci paid $3,098.06 for repair costs related to the transmission. ( See id. ¶ 40). To this day, Honda has not addressed the defect in the GL 1800 and has failed to warn its consumers about the existence of the defect or recall the vehicle. ( See id. ¶ 44).

Plaintiffs seek monetary compensation for themselves and a class of others similarly situated for the monies paid, the diminution in value, and the costs of repairing their GL 1800s. ( See id. 23). Specifically excluded from this proposed class are individuals who suffered personal injury, death, or property damage from the alleged GL 1800 defect. ( See id. ¶ 45). The Amended Complaint contains five separate grounds for relief: (Count I) strict liability; (Count II) negligent misrepresentation; (Count III) negligent failure to warn; (Count IV) breach of express warranty; and (Count V) fraudulent concealment. ( See id. ¶¶ 53–92). Honda seeks dismissal of the Amended Complaint on all counts. ( See generally Mot.).

II. LEGAL STANDARD

“To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’ ” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007)). Although this pleading standard “does not require ‘detailed factual allegations,’ ... it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955).

Pleadings must contain “more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (citation omitted). Indeed, “only a complaint that states a plausible claim for relief survives a motion to dismiss.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556, 127 S.Ct. 1955). To meet this “plausibility standard,” a plaintiff must “plead [ ] factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556, 127 S.Ct. 1955). When reviewing a motion to dismiss, a court must construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and take the factual allegations therein as true. See Brooks v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Fla., Inc., 116 F.3d 1364, 1369 (11th Cir.1997).

III. ANALYSIS

A. Counts I, II, & III

Honda argues Counts I, II, and III are barred by Florida's economic loss rule. ( See Mot. 8–9). As to Count I, Plaintiffs respond that the economic loss rule does not apply to situations where the defect at issue poses a serious risk of physical injury or death. ( See Resp. 7). Regarding Counts II and III, Plaintiffs contend the economic loss rule does not apply to claims of negligent misrepresentation and negligent failure to warn because “these torts are independent of a claim for negligence in the design or manufacture [of] the Gold Wing.” ( Id. 8).

1. The Economic Loss Rule

“[T]he economic loss rule is a judicially created doctrine that sets forth the circumstances under which a tort action is prohibited if the only damages suffered are economic losses.” Tiara Condo. Ass'n v. Marsh & McLennan Cos. Inc., 110 So.3d 399, 401 (Fla.2013) (citation omitted). The Florida Supreme Court has defined economic losses as “damages for inadequate value, costs of repair and replacement of the defective product, or consequent loss of profits—without any claim of personal injury or damage to other property.” Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The result is that “ ‘a manufacturer in a commercial relationship has no duty under either a negligence or strict products-liability theory to prevent a product from injuring itself.’ ” Id. at 404–05 (quoting Fla. Power & Light Co. v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 510 So.2d 899, 901 (Fla.1987)).

The United States Supreme Court, in adopting the economic loss rule, explained, “[e]ven when the harm to the product itself occurs through an abrupt, accident-like event, the resulting loss due to repair costs, decreased value, and lost...