Pitre v. Yamaha Motor Co.

• Decision Date: 30 September 2014
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 13–5327.
• Citation: 51 F.Supp.3d 644
• Parties: Jerry PITRE v. YAMAHA MOTOR CO., LTD., et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana

51 F.Supp.3d 644

Jerry PITRE
v.
YAMAHA MOTOR CO., LTD., et al.

Civil Action No. 13–5327.

United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana.

Signed Sept. 30, 2014.

51 F.Supp.3d 647

James R. Dugan, II, Chad Joseph Primeaux, David Baylis Franco, Dugan Law Firm, James J. Carter, James Carter & Associates, Roderick Alvendia, Alvendia, Kelly, & Demarest, LLC, New Orleans, LA, for Jerry Pitre.

Andrew D. Weinstock, Joseph G. Glass, Philip G. Watson, Duplass, Zwain, Bourgeois, Pfister & Weinstock, Metairie, LA, for Yamaha Motor Co., Ltd., et al.

ORDER AND REASONS

NANNETTE JOLIVETTE BROWN, District Judge.

This is a putative consumer class action in which Plaintiffs Jerry Pitre, Shaffer Domangue, David Swanner, and Sandy Use (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) allege that Defendants Yamaha Motor Co., Ltd. (“YM”) and Yamaha Motor Corp., USA's (“YMUSA”) (collectively, “Yamaha”) used a defective engine coating in outboard motors, causing corrosion and pitting in the exhaust systems of those motors.¹ Pending before the Court are Yamaha Motor Corporation USA's “Motion Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint”² and “Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amending Class Action Complaint.”³ Having reviewed the motions, the memoranda in support, the memoranda in opposition, the record, and the applicable law, the court will deny as moot YMUSA's “Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complain,”⁴ and regarding YMUSA's “Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amending Class Action Complaint,” the Court will deny-in-part and grant-in-part the motion.

I. Background

A. Factual Background

In their complaint, Plaintiffs allege that they purchased Yamaha's First Generation F–Series Four Stroke Outboard motors, model years 2000 through 2005 (the “F–Series Motors”), and that these motors had a defect in their aluminum exhaust component coatings (“coating defect”) that

51 F.Supp.3d 648

caused “severe corrosion and pitting” in their exhaust systems.⁵ The coating defect, according to Plaintiffs, caused a variety of problems, including “breaches in the exhaust passages” and “premature engine decline and failure,” thus diminishing the useful life of the F–Series Motors.⁶ An alternative coating, Plaintiffs maintain, would have “better protected” the affected components' “integrity.”⁷

Plaintiffs assert that although the defect was “readily ascertainable” from Yamaha's engineering tests, it was not outwardly visible.⁸ Thus, the corrosion resulting from the defect allegedly “went undetected” by consumers, allowing it to build up in the F–Series motors, causing the motors to fail.⁹ Plaintiffs contend that because these problems occurred after the engine operated for 200–700 hours, “it is reasonable to conclude that the design of the exhaust system coating was defective and engineered improperly.”¹⁰

According to Plaintiffs, Yamaha provided a three-year warranty to “original and subsequent consumer-buyers who purchase[d] the F–Series Motors for ‘pleasure use.’ ”¹¹ Plaintiffs maintain that, like many recreational boat users, they use their outboard motors less than 100 hours per year.¹² Since the corrosion, pitting, and engine failure “typically” occurred “only after 500–700 hours of usage,” Plaintiffs assert that the defects “regularly” started causing damage only after pleasure users' three-year warranty expired, but “well before consumer expectations or industry standards would indicate [that] an outboard motor would typically need replacing or suffer complete major component failure.”¹³

Plaintiffs contend that the coating defect was present when the motors left Yamaha's manufacturing facility, and that “reasonable engineering tests” would have revealed the defect's deleterious impact on the useful life of the F–Series motors' exhaust gas components.¹⁴ They maintain, further, that Yamaha knew about the coating defect because it developed a “kit” intended to address problems arising from the defect; this “kit” allegedly cost consumers several hundred dollars to purchase, and thousands of dollars to implement.¹⁵

Plaintiffs allege that although Yamaha allegedly knew or should have known about the coating defect, it failed to warn consumers about the defect, continues to deny its existence, and has “systematically den[ied]” extensions of warranty coverage to those F–Series motors affected by the defect, therefore depriving Plaintiffs and putative class members of adequate relief.¹⁶ Yamaha's failure to warm consumers, Plaintiffs aver, caused Plaintiffs and putative class members to “purchase motors they otherwise would not have purchased,” to “pay more for motors than they otherwise would have [done],” and “would likely affect a consumer's ... repair

51 F.Supp.3d 649

decisions.”¹⁷ Additionally, Plaintiffs argue, the F–Series motors “could prove unsafe for consumer-boaters” if they fail at sea or in severe weather.¹⁸

Plaintiffs further allege that Yamaha “had exclusive knowledge” that their F–Series motors contained a hidden defect, and, since this defect “was material,” and Yamaha has responded to complaints about the defect by “alluding to proper maintenance or routine flushing” rather than by initiating a recall procedure, Yamaha has “concealed from and failed to disclose” the defective nature of the F–Series motors.¹⁹

Plaintiffs contend that equitable tolling applies to their claims, as they “could not have discovered, through the exercise of reasonable diligence, that their F–Series motors were defective within the time period of any applicable statute of limitations,” since: (1) the components affected by the coating defect were internal and concealed in the engine, making it impossible to detect the defect through a visual inspection; (2) Yamaha never provided—and, indeed, concealed—information about the defect.²⁰

In their complaint, Plaintiffs make class allegations,²¹ and also include facts specific to each plaintiff; the plaintiff-specific facts are as follows:

1. Jerry Pitre

Jerry Pitre allegedly: (1) purchased an F–Series motor containing the coating defect on July 14, 2004; (2) followed the factory-recommended maintenance procedures for the motor; (3) began experiencing problems with the motor, including engine failure, in 2009, despite logging only 400 hours of use on the motor; (4) was unable to resolve the problems with the motor, and therefore had to purchase a new one; (5) spent money to replace the motor that he would not have had to spend if the motor had not been defective; and (6) would not have purchased the motor or paid the price he paid for it if he had known about the defect.²²

2. Shaffer Domangue

According to Plaintiffs, Shaffer Domangue: (1) purchased an F–Series motor containing the coating defect on July 1, 2004; (2) followed the motor's factory-recommended maintenance procedures; (3) began experiencing problems with the motor after using it for about 100 hours; (4) learned that the exhaust system had corroded after bringing it to a marine equipment dealer for repairs; (5) spent money to repair the motor; and (6) would not have purchased the engine or paid the price he paid for it if he had known about the defect.²³

3. David Swanner

David Swanner purportedly: (1) purchased an F–Series motor containing the coating defect second-hand in December 2004, and had the warranty transferred to himself; (2) followed the motor's factory-recommended maintenance procedures; (3) began experiencing problems with the motor, including engine failure, in June 2013, after using the motor for around 300 hours; (4) spent money to repair the motor; and (5) would not have purchased the

51 F.Supp.3d 650

motor or paid the price he paid for it if he had known about the defect.²⁴

4. Sandy Use

Sandy Use allegedly: (1) purchased an F–Series motor containing the coating defect in June 2006; (2) followed the motor's factory-recommended maintenance procedures; (3) brought the motor to the seller for repairs related to engine failure in April 2012, after using the motor for around 126 hours; (4) made a warranty claim, which Yamaha denied because “the motor was too old to be under warranty and had little use”; (5) subsequently spent money to have the motor repaired; (6) would not have purchased the motor or paid the price he paid for it if he had known about the defect.²⁵

B. Procedural Background

Plaintiffs, invoking this Court's federal question and diversity jurisdiction, filed a complaint against Yamaha in this Court on August 8, 2013.²⁶ YMUSA filed a “Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint” on October 9, 2013.²⁷ Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on October 30, 2013.²⁸ In their amended complaint, Plaintiffs allege that Yamaha's conduct: (1) violates the Louisiana Products Liability Act;²⁹ (2) violates the warranty against redhibitory defects;³⁰ (3) constitutes negligence;³¹ (4) violates the Louisiana...