## Facts

- Owners of 1984–1993 model-year Ford vehicles alleged their vehicles contained ignition switches manufactured by United Technologies Corporation that could short-circuit and cause vehicle fires.
- Plaintiffs claimed they experienced smoke or fire damage and alleged Ford and the switch manufacturer knew of the defect but continued selling the vehicles.
- The litigation was part of a multidistrict proceeding concerning ignition-switch claims; earlier “no-injury” consumer cases were dismissed by stipulation, leaving only fire-damage owner claims.
- After an earlier denial of class certification, plaintiffs renewed their motion under Rule 23(b)(3) with an amended class definition and a two-stage trial plan.
- Plaintiffs proposed: (1) a class-wide trial using engineering proof and statistical analysis of complaint databases to establish defect and a rebuttable presumption of causation, followed by (2) individualized mini-trials for rebuttal and damages.

## Issues

1. Whether the proposed class satisfies Rule 23(b)(3)’s predominance and superiority requirements given the application of product-liability and related laws from nearly fifty states.
2. Whether defect and causation could be proven on a class-wide basis through expert and statistical evidence sufficient to make common issues predominate.
3. Whether the two-stage trial plan (class-wide presumptive causation followed by many individual mini-trials) is manageable and superior to individual adjudications.

## Decision

- The court denied the renewed motion for class certification.
- The court held plaintiffs failed to satisfy Rule 23(b)(3) because individual issues of causation and state-law variation predominated and the proposed trial plan was not a superior method of adjudication.
- The court concluded the complaint-database and expert methodology did not eliminate the need for claimant-specific proof on what caused each vehicle fire.

## Legal Principles

- Rule 23(b)(3) requires that common questions predominate over individual questions and that a class action be superior to other methods of fairly and efficiently resolving the controversy.
- In multi-state damages actions, material differences among states’ substantive laws can defeat predominance, superiority, and manageability for a single nationwide class.
- Where liability turns on claimant-specific proof of causation (including alternative causes and vehicle-specific conditions), individualized issues may predominate even if a product-defect theory is common.
- A proposed presumption-and-rebuttal structure that still necessitates numerous individualized mini-trials may indicate that class treatment will not produce efficiency consistent with Rule 23(b)(3).

## Conclusion

The court refused to certify a Rule 23(b)(3) class for ignition-switch fire-damage claims because variations in applicable state laws and individualized determinations of causation and damages would dominate the litigation, and the proposed two-stage plan would devolve into extensive claimant-by-claimant trials rather than an efficient class proceeding.


In re Ford Motor Co. Ignition Switch Prods. Liab. Litig., 194 F.R.D. 484 (D.N.J. 2000)