## Facts

- Ohio purchasers of certain Whirlpool front-loading washers (Duet®, Duet HT®, Duet Sport®, and Duet Sport HT®) alleged a common design defect that allowed mold and mildew growth, causing odors and contamination of laundry.
- Plaintiffs alleged the design promoted biofilm/mold in areas not readily accessible to consumers, creating persistent odors and related problems.
- Plaintiffs alleged Whirlpool knew of the defect, marketed the washers as premium/high-efficiency, and failed to warn consumers of the mold propensity.
- Multiple actions were centralized in an MDL in the Northern District of Ohio.
- The district court certified an Ohio class limited to liability for tortious breach of warranty, negligent design, and negligent failure to warn, reserving damages for individualized determinations.

## Issues

1. Whether common questions predominated under Rule 23(b)(3) for an Ohio purchaser class asserting liability theories based on an alleged uniform design defect and failure to warn.
2. Whether Comcast required decertification where the class was certified on liability only and damages were reserved for individual proceedings.

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3) certification of the Ohio liability-only class.
- Common questions predominated because the central dispute was whether the washers shared a mold-facilitating design defect and whether Whirlpool knew of it and failed to warn.
- The court rejected the argument that individualized questions (e.g., whether a particular washer manifested mold/odor) defeated predominance.
- Comcast did not require decertification because the class certification did not turn on a classwide damages model; damages were expressly reserved for individual adjudication.
- The court agreed that a class action was a superior method to resolve the repeated liability issues in one proceeding, with later individualized damages determinations if necessary.

## Legal Principles

- Rule 23(b)(3) predominance does not require every issue to be common; it requires that common issues form a significant part of the case and can be resolved for the class in a single adjudication.
- In products-defect cases, a shared alleged design defect and common evidence about a defendant’s knowledge and warnings can support predominance even if manifestation, causation details, and damages vary among class members.
- Comcast does not impose a categorical rule that individualized damages defeat certification; where a class is certified on liability only and damages are severed for individual proceedings, the absence of a classwide damages model does not, by itself, preclude certification.
- Superiority may be satisfied where a class proceeding avoids duplicative litigation over the same core liability questions and remains manageable through phased liability and damages determinations.

## Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit upheld certification of an Ohio liability-only class challenging an alleged uniform washer design defect, holding that common liability questions predominated and that Comcast did not bar certification where damages were left for individual resolution.


In re Whirlpool Corp. Front-Loading Washer Prods. Liab. Litig., 722 F.3d 838 (6th Cir. 2013)