## Facts

- Ford Motor Company delivered a new car to Magarino Ford-Mercury, a dealership, with a written express warranty.
- The express warranty clearly and unmistakably disclaimed Ford’s responsibility for nonfactory (aftermarket) parts.
- Magarino later transferred the car to another dealership, Faulkner-Ciocca Ford Mercury.
- Faulkner sold the car to Timothy Reese.
- Reese worked at a local Pep Boys auto-parts store, and over the next three years Reese and Pep Boys serviced the car.
- At some point after the sale, someone installed defective aftermarket wiring in the car.
- The defective wiring ignited, causing a fire that destroyed the car and damaged the Reeses’ house.
- Timothy and Mary Reese sued Ford, Magarino, and Faulkner seeking damages under strict liability and breach of express and implied warranties.
- The district court concluded Ford’s express-warranty disclaimer barred the express-warranty claim, and that the Reeses could not prove which defendant installed the wiring; it entered summary judgment for all defendants.
- The Reeses appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether Ford’s express warranty, which disclaimed liability for nonfactory parts, barred the Reeses’ express-warranty claim where the alleged cause of the fire was defective aftermarket wiring installed after sale.
2. Whether the Reeses produced enough evidence to let a reasonable jury find that Ford, Magarino, or Faulkner supplied or installed the defective wiring for purposes of strict liability and implied-warranty theories.
3. Whether the burden of proving causation could shift to defendants under an alternative-liability theory when the installer of the aftermarket wiring could not be identified.

## Decision

- The Third Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment for Ford, Magarino, and Faulkner.
- Ford was entitled to judgment on the express-warranty claim because its written warranty plainly excluded coverage for damage caused by nonfactory parts, and the alleged defect involved aftermarket wiring.
- The claims against the dealerships failed because the Reeses did not present evidence from which a jury could determine that any defendant installed or was responsible for the defective wiring.
- Alternative-liability principles did not apply on this record, so the Reeses were not excused from proving which defendant caused the harm.

## Legal Principles

- A clear, unmistakable express-warranty limitation excluding nonfactory parts can bar an express-warranty claim when the loss is tied to an aftermarket component rather than the product as sold.
- Strict-liability and warranty theories require evidence connecting the defendant to the allegedly defective product or condition; a plaintiff must offer proof of causation beyond guesswork.
- Alternative liability is narrow and generally requires that the actual wrongdoer is among the defendants, that each defendant’s conduct was tortious, and that the plaintiff’s inability to identify the specific cause is not due to missing potential actors outside the case.
- When a defect may have been introduced by an unknown third party after sale (such as aftermarket wiring installed during later service), a plaintiff must produce evidence that the defendant sold, installed, or controlled the component or condition alleged to be defective.

## Conclusion

The Third Circuit affirmed summary judgment because Ford’s express warranty excluded liability for nonfactory parts and the alleged fire was caused by aftermarket wiring, while the Reeses lacked evidence tying the installation of that wiring to any defendant and could not invoke alternative liability to avoid proving who caused the defect.


Reese v. Ford Motor Co., 2012 WL 4465670 (2012)