Briede v. Valspar Corp.

• Decision Date: 02 July 2013
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 12-CV-13406
• Parties: TREVOR BRIEDE, Plaintiff, v. THE VALSPAR CORPORATION, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan

TREVOR BRIEDE, Plaintiff,

v.THE VALSPAR CORPORATION, Defendant.

Civil Action No. 12-CV-13406

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

Dated: July 2, 2013

HON. MARK A. GOLDSMITH

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS (DKT. 13)

I. INTRODUCTION

The various claims in this case arise from a purported contractual relationship between Plaintiff Trevor Briede and Defendant The Valspar Corporation. Plaintiff filed a putative class action complaint, which brings five counts against Defendant: (i) breach of contract; (ii) violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. Stat. §§ 501.201 et seq., and other state deceptive and unfair trade practices acts; (iii) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (iv) unjust enrichment; and (v) unconscionability. Am. Compl. (Dkt. 11). The amended complaint seeks certification of the class, damages, costs, restitution, and injunctive relief. Id. at 25. Defendant filed the instant motion to dismiss Plaintiff's amended complaint on November 1, 2012 (Dkt. 13). The motion is fully briefed, and a hearing was held on February 21, 2013. After the hearing, the Court ordered supplemental briefing, which the parties submitted (Dkts. 25, 26). For the reasons that follow, the Court denies the motion to dismiss.

II. BACKGROUND

On February 6, 2010, Plaintiff Trevor Briede, a resident of Florida, purchased a sofa and a rug runner from Haverty's Furniture in Naples, Florida. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 3, 27 (Dkt. 11). Plaintiff also bought a Guardsman "Gold in Home" 5-Year Protection Plan from Haverty's Furniture to cover the sofa and the rug. Id. ¶ 28. Plaintiff signed a form attached to his sales receipt for these purchases. Id.; Sales Receipt, Ex. 2 to Pl. Resp. (Dkt. 16-3). The sales receipt records Plaintiff's purchase of, among other items, a rug costing $199.99 and a Guardsman Gold Plan and Gold Kit for $249.99. Sales Receipt, Ex. 2 to Pl. Resp. The receipt also states, "Please visit www.myHavertys.com or contact customer service for more information on your furniture protection plan." Id. According to the amended complaint, "Plaintiff was not aware of the existence, the location, or the Terms of the Protection Plan and Service Contract at the time of purchase." Am. Compl. ¶ 29.

After Plaintiff made these purchases, the Furniture Protection Plan and Service Contract was provided to Plaintiff in a sealed box of furniture cleaning supplies. Id. ¶ 29. The box of cleaning supplies is labeled "FURNITURE CARE KIT," and text on the box states in part, "The Guardsman Furniture Protection Plan covers your new furniture against accidental stains and damages." Photographs, Ex. 1 to Pl. Resp. (Dkt. 16-2).

The Furniture Protection Plan sent to Plaintiff states, "This Five (5) Year Guardsman Gold Furniture Protection Plan ("Protection Plan") is a service contract between you (the original purchaser), the consumer, and The Valspar Corporation, through its Guardsman business unit . . . .". Ex. 2 to Am. Compl. (Dkt. 11-3). It further states:

1. If a stain or damage listed in the "What is Covered" section occurs during the term of this Protection Plan, Guardsman agrees to provide Service ("Service") as outlined in the "SERVICE PROCEDURES" section of this Protection Plan.

. . . .3. This Protection Plan is valid for a period of five years ("The Term") from the delivery date of your new furniture and area rug.

4. This plan covers new furniture and area rug up to a maximum $30,000 in retail value.

5. This plan is only valid for new furniture and area rug that was purchased at the same time as this Protection Plan, and appears on the sales receipt as such.

Id. The Service Contract covers some types of damage to area rugs, including "[a]ny household stain from a specific incident." Id. The Service Contract excludes from this coverage "[s]tains or damages caused by animals," although it does cover non-repetitive "pet bodily fluid stains." Id. The Service Contract states, "repetitive bodily fluid stains are considered preventable occurrences and will not be eligible for service." Id. The Service Contract also does not cover odors. Id.

In a section titled "REQUIREMENTS FOR REQUESTING SERVICE," the Service Contract provides:

Failure to meet any of the following requirements can result in a denial of Service under this Protection Plan.

The furniture and area rug must have been delivered and installed soil-free and damage free from the store where it was purchased. You must have performed all routine and preventative maintenance, as recommended by the manufacturer. 1. Any stain or damage must be reported to Guardsman within five (5) business days of the date that the stain or damage is discovered. Notify Guardsman by calling (800) 482-7340, or by filing a Service Request at guardsman.com.

. . . .

3. Complete and return the Service Request Form.

4. Provide Guardsman with a copy of the sales receipt and a copy of this Protection Plan within 30 days after reporting your stain or damage.

Id. (emphasis in original). The section of the Service Contract titled "SERVICE PROCEDURES" provides, in relevant part:

If Guardsman determines that the reported stain or damage is covered under this Protection Plan, Guardsman will perform one or more of the following.

• Guardsman may provide a cleaning kit or advice on how to remove the stain.

• Guardsman may dispatch an authorized technician to remove the stain or repairthe damaged area.

. . . .

• Guardsman may offer a settlement amount up to the original purchase price of the furniture or area rug. A settlement will terminate this Protection Plan on that piece of furniture or area rug.

• If the particular store location where you originally purchased your furniture and/or area rug ("Store") has closed, no longer carries Guardsman as a supplier, changed ownership, or has stopped selling new furniture and area rugs since your purchase, Guardsman will give you a refund of the original purchase price of this Protection Plan.

Id. (emphasis and formatting in original).

The rug was delivered to Plaintiff on February 10, 2010, and on July 4, 2011, Plaintiff's cat urinated on the rug. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 32, 34. On July 6, 2011, Plaintiff "called the Guardsman 800 number and reported the event to a Guardsman representative." Id. ¶ 35. On July 13, 2011, Plaintiff sent the completed Customer Service Request Form to Guardsman, with an attached copy of the sales receipt. Id. ¶ 37. On July 20, 2011, a service technician from one of Guardsman's service providers went to Plaintiff's house and treated the rug with a product designed to remove animal urine. Id. ¶¶ 39, 40. The urine stain remained after the treatment, and Plaintiff contacted the service technician to inform him there was a still a stain. Id. ¶ 42. "The technician told Plaintiff that filing another form with Guardsman was not necessary and that he would pick up the rug for a more thorough cleaning off premises." Id.

The technician removed the rug from Plaintiff's house for about two weeks to treat it. Id. ¶ 43. When the rug was returned to Plaintiff, "there was an overpowering and nauseating chemical odor in the rug that was not present before the technician's second treatment . . . . [and] the urine stain was still visible." Id. ¶ 44. Plaintiff again contacted the service technician, who told Plaintiff to air the rug outdoors for an extended period of time. Id. ¶ 46. Plaintiff let the rug air out on his screened porch for several months. Id. ¶ 47. Plaintiff examined the rug on February 20, 2012, and determined that the chemical odor was still too strong for the rug to beusable, and the urine stain was still visible. Id. ¶ 48. Plaintiff's wife called Guardsman to report the problem, and the Guardsman service representative told Plaintiff's wife to file a second Service Request Form. Id. ¶ 49.

On March 25, 2012, Plaintiff sent a second Service Request Form to Guardsman, and on April 6, 2012, a Guardsman representative contacted Plaintiff by phone. Id. ¶¶ 50, 51. Plaintiff told the representative of the chemical odor and the remaining urine stain. Id. ¶ 51. The Guardsman representative "informed Plaintiff that odors were not covered by the Protection Plan and Service Contract and that his claim would be closed." Id. Within a day, Guardsman notified Plaintiff that his Service Request Form was denied because it was not received within 30 days of first reporting the damage to the rug. Id. ¶ 52. Plaintiff asked to speak with a manager, and Plaintiff was transferred to several other individuals, but was "denied access" to the manager with whom Plaintiff wished to speak. Id. ¶ 54. Plaintiff alleges that in the phone calls, the Guardsman representatives denied his claim for various illegitimate reasons, including: the plan does not cover odors; the claim was not filed within five days of the cleaning incident; the follow-up claim was not filed within thirty days of the initial claim; and the plan does not cover repetitive animal stains. Id. ¶ 55.

On April 16, 2012, Plaintiff received a letter from Guardsman denying Plaintiff's claim, on the grounds that "the reported damage was not covered under the Terms of the Protection Plan and Service Contract and that the purported deadlines for returning the Service Request Form were not met." Id. ¶ 58. Plaintiff filed complaints with the Michigan Attorney General's Consumer Protection Division and with the Michigan Better Business Bureau. Id. ¶¶ 56, 57. Defendant subsequently submitted a letter to the Michigan Attorney General, stating that "as a customer accommodation, we are willing to offer a refund of the purchase price of the Plan in theamount of $249.99. If he would like to accept the refund, please contact me in writing at the address listed above so we can make the necessary arrangements." Letter of 05/11/12, Ex.1 to Pl. Supp. Br. (Dkt. 26-2). It is undisputed that Plaintiff has not accepted a refund from Defendant.

III. LEGAL STANDARD

Federal...