## Facts

- Owners of 1996–1997 DaimlerChrysler minivans with front passenger air bags sued on behalf of a nationwide class seeking economic relief.
- Plaintiffs alleged a uniform defect in the front passenger air bags: overly aggressive deployment force and deployment in low-speed collisions.
- Plaintiffs alleged DaimlerChrysler failed to warn that the defect could seriously injure or kill children or small adults in the front passenger seat.
- Plaintiffs sought the cost to replace or retrofit the air bags, not damages for personal injury.
- The proposed class excluded owners with personal-injury claims from deployment and owners whose air bags had been deactivated or replaced.
- The trial court certified a nationwide class asserting UCC warranty claims and a common-law fraud/deceit claim.
- DaimlerChrysler appealed the interlocutory class certification order.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by certifying a nationwide class for UCC warranty claims under Oklahoma’s class action statute, including predominance and superiority requirements.
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by certifying the fraud and deceit claim on a nationwide class basis given differences in states’ fraud laws and related manageability concerns.
3. Whether Oklahoma choice-of-law rules permitted applying a single state’s law to the nationwide warranty claims, and if so, which state’s law applied.

## Decision

- The court affirmed class certification for the UCC warranty claims.
- The court reversed class certification for the fraud and deceit claim.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the decision.

## Legal Principles

- Under Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 2023 (modeled on Fed. R. Civ. P. 23), a (B)(3) damages class requires that common questions predominate and that the class action device be superior to other available methods.
- A nationwide warranty class may satisfy predominance where liability turns on common proof of an allegedly uniform product defect and common questions about the manufacturer’s warranties, even if some individualized questions remain.
- Superiority may be supported where aggregated litigation avoids inconsistent outcomes and makes economically rational prosecution of modest individual losses possible.
- Oklahoma applies the Restatement (Second) “most significant relationship” test for choice of law; for the warranty claims at issue, Michigan law could govern on a classwide basis based on the manufacturer’s Michigan-centered conduct and interests tied to warranty obligations.
- Nationwide class treatment of fraud claims may fail predominance and manageability where state laws materially vary on elements such as reliance, disclosure duties, and remedies, requiring many jurisdictions’ laws to be applied.

## Conclusion

The court permitted nationwide class treatment for economic-loss warranty claims by applying Michigan law under Oklahoma choice-of-law rules, but rejected nationwide class treatment for fraud because multi-state legal variation made common issues non-predominant and the claim unmanageable as a class proceeding.


Ysbrand v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 81 P.3d 618 (Okla. 2003)