ILNews

7th Circuit reinstates smelly washer class actions

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Two class actions claiming Kenmore washing machines sold at Sears stores were defective were reinstated by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday after certification of the suits was vacated in June by the U.S. Supreme Court.

An Indiana man is the lead plaintiff in the both classes, Larry Butler et al. v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., 11-8029, 12-8030. The suits separately claim that design defects in front-loading washers sold between 2001-2004 create odor-causing mold or cause the machines to stop at inopportune times.

The SCOTUS ruling vacating class certification in the cases remanded the suits to the 7th Circuit on the basis of its holding in Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 133 S. Ct. 1426 (2013). There, justices determined that a suit may not be certified as a class action unless damages sought are the result of a class-wide injury.

In reinstating class certification in both cases in accordance with its November 2012 ruling, Circuit Judge Richard Posner wrote, “It would drive a stake through the heart of the class action device, in cases in which damages were sought rather than an injunction or a declaratory judgment, to require that every member of the class have identical damages. … (T)he fact that damages are not identical across all class members should not preclude class certification.

“There is a single, central, common issue of liability: whether the Sears washing machine was defective,” the 7th Circuit ruled.

Posner noted that the opinion harmonizes a Sixth Circuit ruling in light of Comcast in a similar mold class action regarding washers made by Whirlpool, which also manufactured the Kenmore machines. “The concordance in reasoning and result of our decision and the Sixth Circuit’s decision averts an intercircuit conflict,” Posner wrote for the panel.
 
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT