## Facts

- Owners of certain General Motors passenger cars (manufactured since 1987) brought a putative class action against General Motors Corporation and a GM dealership.
- The cars used an automatic, non-motorized, passive three-point restraint system with door-mounted retractors.
- Plaintiffs alleged the system was not truly “automatic” or “passive” because drivers had to disengage the door-mounted restraint to enter and exit conveniently.
- Plaintiffs claimed purely economic harm: diminished vehicle value; they did not seek recovery for personal injury or accident-related losses.
- Plaintiffs asserted, among other claims, breach of the implied warranty of merchantability and breach of express warranties concerning the restraint system.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for defendants on all claims before class certification.
- The court of appeals reversed in part as to the warranty claims, holding summary judgment improper on implied and express warranty.
- The Texas Supreme Court reviewed only the warranty claims.

## Issues

1. Whether plaintiffs raised a genuine issue of material fact that the restraint system was unfit for its ordinary purpose, constituting a breach of the implied warranty of merchantability under Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 2.314.
2. Whether plaintiffs raised a genuine issue of material fact that defendants breached any express warranty concerning the restraint system’s automatic/passive character or performance.

## Decision

- The Texas Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals’ judgment to the extent it revived the warranty claims.
- The Court rendered judgment reinstating the trial court’s summary judgment for defendants on the implied and express warranty claims.
- The Court held plaintiffs produced no evidence raising a fact issue that the restraint system was unfit for its ordinary purpose as a restraint.
- The Court held plaintiffs produced no evidence raising a fact issue of breach of an express warranty based on specific affirmations, nonconformity, and resulting damages.

## Legal Principles

- Implied warranty of merchantability requires proof the goods are defective, meaning unfit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are used. Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 2.314(b)(3).
- A product’s inconvenience, consumer dissatisfaction, or disagreement with marketing terminology does not establish unmerchantability absent evidence of functional unfitness for ordinary use.
- To avoid summary judgment on an express warranty claim, a plaintiff must identify specific affirmations of fact or promises that formed part of the basis of the bargain, show the product failed to conform, and show resulting damages.
- On summary judgment, once the movant establishes entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the nonmovant must produce evidence raising a genuine issue of material fact on each challenged element.

## Conclusion

The Texas Supreme Court reinstated summary judgment for General Motors and the dealership because plaintiffs’ evidence, focused on inconvenience and asserted diminished value, did not raise a fact issue that the restraint system was unfit for its ordinary safety purpose or that any specific express warranty was breached with resulting compensable loss.


General Motors Corp. v. Brewer, 966 S.W.2d 56 (Tex. 1998)