Proof of specific defect not necessary for breach of warranty claim

Law Reporter, Jun 2001

Genetti v. Caterpillar, Inc., 621 N.W.2d 529 (Neb. 2001).

The Nebraska Supreme Court held that plaintiffs do not need to provide evidence of a specific defect to succeed on a breach of warranty claim.

Here, the Genettis purchased a truck manufactured by General Motors and equipped with an engine manufactured by Caterpillar. The engine failed four times. After the fourth failure, Caterpillar informed the Genettis that it would not honor the warranty because it had determined the truck had been allowed to overheat. The Genettis sued both manufacturers under the state warranty act and the Uniform Commercial Code (U.C.C.), alleging breach of express warranty, among other claims. A jury found for plaintiffs on the breach of warranty claim. Defendants moved to set aside the verdict and for a new trial, arguing plaintiffs failed to show proof of a defect in material or workmanship. The trial court denied the motions, finding that plaintiffs did not have to prove an engine defect to recover under a breach of warranty theory.

Affirming, the state high court noted that for a plaintiff to recover for breach of an express warranty, it must be shown that the goods were defective and, thus, did not comply with the warranty. However, the court said it had never addressed whether plaintiffs must prove a specific defect under the state warranty act or the U.C.C. The majority of courts that have addressed the issue do not require proof of a specific defect. Rather, they allow proof that is circumstantial or inferred from the evidence. Moreover, under many warranties--including the one at issue here-- a consumer requiring warranty service on a vehicle must take the vehicle to a service department at an authorized dealer. The dealer and manufacturer could tamper with the evidence in such a situation, the court said, making it unconscionable to place the burden on the consumer to prove a specific defect. Imposing such a burden on consumers would deny them a meaningful remedy. Consequently, although expert testimony would be the best way of proving the existence of a defect, plaintiffs do not need to prove a specific defect for a jury to find a product defective under the state warranty act or the U.C.C., the court held.

The court found that plaintiffs presented sufficient evidence of a defect. Although plaintiffs' expert could not specifically state what caused the last breakdown, he did offer several reasons supported by testimony and repair records. Further, plaintiffs presented evidence eliminating any abuse or misuse on their part as a possible cause of the breakdown. Thus, a reasonable jury could conclude, based on this evidence, that the fourth breakdown was caused by a defect in the engine and should have been covered by the warranty, the court concluded.

Plaintiffs' Counsel

Gregory C. Scaglione, Omaha, Neb.

Thomas F. Ackley, Omaha, Neb.

Comment: In Kerr v. Abacus Computer Servs., _ N.E.2d _, No. 2000-L-004, 2001 WL 20774 (Ohio Ct. App. Dec. 29, 2000), an Ohio appellate court held that the purchaser of a computer that failed to work properly is entitled to a refund despite the lack of evidence demonstrating why the computer did not work. Charles G. Deeb, Willoughby, Ohio, represented plaintiff.