## Facts

- Ford Motor Company equipped its E-350 extended vans with 15 seats and marketed them as “15-passenger” vans.
- Ford’s advertising described the vans as “very safe” and “America’s most trustworthy” van.
- Multiple purchasers (including organizations such as churches and social-service entities) from several states brought a putative class action alleging the E-350 had a defective design, including a high center of gravity, making it unusually prone to rollovers when fully loaded.
- No named plaintiff (and no putative class member, as pleaded) alleged an actual rollover, crash, or personal injury; plaintiffs sought economic relief only.
- Plaintiffs alleged they suffered economic losses such as diminished vehicle value and costs associated with obtaining additional vehicles and training drivers, and they requested equitable relief requiring Ford to fix the alleged defect and to stop selling extended passenger vans unless corrected.
- Plaintiffs asserted state-law claims for breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, unjust enrichment, and violations of various state consumer-fraud statutes.
- In this MDL proceeding, Ford moved to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing (among other points) that the advertising was nonactionable puffery and that the pleaded state-law claims failed under applicable state requirements.

## Issues

1. In an MDL transferred from multiple districts, which state’s substantive law governs each plaintiff’s warranty, unjust-enrichment, and consumer-fraud claims.
2. Whether labeling and advertising the van as a “15-passenger” vehicle and making safety-related statements could plausibly amount to actionable misrepresentations and/or express warranties, rather than mere puffery, at the pleading stage.
3. Whether plaintiffs can state warranty and consumer-fraud claims seeking only economic loss based on an alleged safety defect that has not resulted in any accident or injury.
4. Whether certain plaintiffs’ warranty claims fail under their home-state law due to defenses and pleading problems such as limitations, privity rules, or other state-specific requirements.
5. Whether the complaint plausibly states unjust-enrichment claims where purchases were often made through dealers and state law may limit quasi-contract remedies in light of warranty or statutory remedies.

## Decision

- The court granted Ford’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion in part and denied it in part.
- The court applied the choice-of-law rules of the transferor courts and, as a general matter, applied each plaintiff’s home-state substantive law to that plaintiff’s claims, except where no material differences existed.
- The court dismissed the Alabama, Arkansas, and Illinois plaintiffs’ express-warranty claims.
- The court dismissed the Alabama, Arkansas, and Illinois plaintiffs’ implied-warranty claims.
- The court dismissed the Alabama and Arkansas plaintiffs’ consumer-fraud statutory claims.
- The court dismissed one of the California plaintiff’s three consumer-fraud statutory claims.
- The court allowed the remaining claims—including substantial portions of the New Jersey and California claims, as well as unjust-enrichment claims for some plaintiffs—to proceed past the pleading stage.

## Legal Principles

- In MDL proceedings, the transferee court applies the choice-of-law rules of the transferor courts and then applies the resulting substantive state law on a plaintiff-by-plaintiff and claim-by-claim basis.
- Statements in marketing materials may be actionable when they plausibly communicate concrete factual assertions (including about a product’s capacity or suitability); generalized praise may be treated as puffery depending on context and state law.
- A plaintiff may seek recovery for economic loss tied to an alleged defect or undisclosed safety risk (such as overpayment or diminished value) without pleading an accident or injury, but the availability and elements of such claims vary by state and by cause of action.
- Warranty claims are evaluated under state-specific doctrines that can include privity limits, limitations rules, and other pleading requirements; claims may be dismissed when those requirements are not met under the governing state law.
- Unjust-enrichment theories depend on the elements recognized by the governing state law, including whether the plaintiff plausibly alleged that it conferred a benefit on the defendant and whether quasi-contract relief is available in light of other legal remedies.

## Conclusion

In this MDL over alleged rollover risk in Ford E-350 “15-passenger” vans, the District of New Jersey ruled on Ford’s motion to dismiss by applying each plaintiff’s home-state law and dismissing several states’ warranty and consumer-fraud claims while allowing other consumer-fraud, warranty, and unjust-enrichment theories to move forward based on the complaint’s allegations of misleading capacity and safety representations and resulting economic loss without any pleaded rollover event.


In re Ford Motor Co. E-350 Van Products Liability Litigation (No. II), 2008 WL 4126264 (2008)