## Facts

- Homeowners Michael J. and Elizabeth D. McNamara remodeled their lake home in Duluth, Minnesota and sought to replace a bay window that developed exterior condensation in summer, obstructing their view.
- They consulted Donald E. Bergeson, a sales representative for Nomeco Building Specialties, Inc., which sold Pella-branded windows.
- Bergeson allegedly recommended a Pella “Smart Sash III” replacement and orally assured the McNamaras it would not have condensation problems.
- The McNamaras purchased the window from Nomeco; their contractor installed it.
- The replacement window experienced the same fogging/condensation problem.
- The McNamaras alleged they did not think Bergeson intentionally lied, but instead passed along incorrect information.
- The complaint asserted, among other claims, Minnesota Consumer Fraud Act claims (Counts IV and VI) and a Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act implied-warranty claim against Nomeco (Count VII).
- Nomeco moved to dismiss or for summary judgment on Counts IV, VI, and VII.

## Issues

1. Whether a plaintiff may bring a Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act claim for breach of implied warranty against a seller who provided no written warranty in connection with the sale.
2. Whether alleged negligent misrepresentations during the sale of merchandise can support claims under the Minnesota Consumer Fraud Act without proof of intent to deceive.

## Decision

- The court granted summary judgment to Nomeco on the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act claim (Count VII) and dismissed that claim with prejudice as to Nomeco.
- The court denied Nomeco’s motion as to the Minnesota Consumer Fraud Act claims (Counts IV and VI), allowing those claims to proceed.

## Legal Principles

- A Magnuson-Moss implied-warranty claim against a supplier requires that the supplier provided a written warranty; the Act is not an independent federal implied-warranty regime untethered to written warranty obligations.
- Interpreting Magnuson-Moss to permit implied-warranty liability without a written warranty would conflict with the statute’s structure and purpose aimed at regulating written warranty practices.
- The Minnesota Consumer Fraud Act does not require proof of a specific intent to deceive.
- Negligent misrepresentations made in connection with the sale of merchandise may be actionable under the Minnesota Consumer Fraud Act, and disputes about what was represented and whether reasonable care was used can create fact questions that preclude summary judgment.

## Conclusion

The court held that Nomeco could not be sued under Magnuson-Moss for breach of implied warranty absent a written warranty from Nomeco, but it allowed the Minnesota Consumer Fraud Act claims to continue because the statute can reach negligent misrepresentations in consumer sales without requiring intent to deceive.


McNamara v. Nomeco Bldg. Specialties, Inc., 26 F. Supp. 2d 1168 (D. Minn. 1998)