## Facts

- Eight Nissan vehicle owners/lessees brought a putative nationwide class action against Nissan North America, Inc. and Nissan Motor Co., Ltd.
- Plaintiffs alleged certain Nissan models contained a defective Timing Chain Tensioning System (TCTS) component made with inferior plastic that prematurely wore down.
- The alleged defect caused abnormal noise, engine damage, and costly repairs, and was claimed to pose potential safety risks.
- Plaintiffs alleged Nissan knew or should have known of the defect, communicated about it to dealers via technical service bulletins, and failed to disclose it to consumers.
- The vehicles were sold with a 36-month/36,000-mile basic warranty for defects in materials or workmanship and a 60-month/60,000-mile powertrain warranty for specified components.
- Nissan argued repairs occurred after the basic warranty expired and thus were not covered; plaintiffs alleged the defect existed and manifested during the warranty period even if major failure occurred later.
- Nissan moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).

## Issues

1. Whether plaintiffs plausibly stated a breach of express warranty claim despite most repairs occurring after the written warranty period.
2. Whether implied warranty of merchantability claims were time-barred and, if so, whether fraudulent concealment was pleaded sufficiently to toll the limitations period.
3. Whether plaintiffs stated viable claims under various state consumer-protection statutes based on alleged omissions and deceptive conduct.
4. Whether plaintiffs plausibly stated claims for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, and a derivative claim under the Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act.

## Decision

- The court granted the motion to dismiss in part and denied it in part.
- The court denied dismissal of the breach of express warranty claim, concluding plaintiffs plausibly alleged a defect in materials/workmanship and alleged manifestation during the warranty period.
- The court dismissed the implied warranty of merchantability claim as time-barred and held plaintiffs did not plead fraudulent concealment with sufficient particularity to toll limitations.
- The court dismissed several state consumer-protection claims for inadequate pleading of required statutory elements and/or timeliness, while allowing other consumer-protection theories to proceed.
- The court denied dismissal of breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment.
- The court allowed the Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act claim to proceed to the extent it was premised on the surviving warranty and contract theories.

## Legal Principles

- At the pleading stage, an express-warranty claim may proceed where plaintiffs plausibly allege a defect in materials or workmanship and a plausible link between the defect’s manifestation and the warranty period, even if major failure and repairs occur later.
- UCC implied-warranty claims generally accrue at tender of delivery and are subject to a four-year statute of limitations.
- To toll limitations on a concealment theory, plaintiffs must plead fraudulent concealment with particularity, including affirmative acts of concealment rather than non-disclosure alone.
- Consumer-protection claims require statute-specific pleading of deception/omission, causation, and other required elements; insufficiently particularized allegations are subject to dismissal.
- Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act claims are commonly dependent on the viability of underlying state-law warranty and related contract theories.

## Conclusion

The court narrowed the case by dismissing time-barred implied-warranty claims and certain consumer-protection counts, but allowed litigation to continue on the central express-warranty, contract, implied-covenant, unjust-enrichment, and related Magnuson–Moss theories based on the alleged TCTS defect.


Duncan v. Nissan N. Am., Inc., 305 F. Supp. 3d 311 (D. Mass. 2018)