Eleventh Circuit on Implied Warranty of Merchantability

The Eleventh Circuit released an opinion recently regarding the implied warranty of merchantability and products that are “unfit” and “defective” as those terms are defined by Alabama law. In Easterling v. Ford Motor Co., No. 18-12914, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 23286 (11th Cir. Aug. 5, 2019) the Court stated:

On the other hand, defectiveness and unfitness are two distinct concepts under Alabama law. In Ex parte Gen. Motors Corp., 769 So. 2d 903 (Ala. 1999), the Supreme Court of Alabama reaffirmed a “clear distinction” between product liability and warranty liability under Alabama law. Id. at 913. To prevail on a product-liability claim, a plaintiff must prove that a product suffered from some “defect.” Id. at 912. The court explained that “defect” under Alabama law is a hybrid of two concepts—fitness for the ordinary purpose (derived from warranty law) and unreasonable dangerousness (derived from product-liability law). Id. at 912-13. Because “defect” is a term of art that was hatched in the context of product-liability law, it stands to reason that “defect” is not an element of an implied-warranty claim, especially since “defect” appears nowhere in the text of § 7-2-314. Cf. Mamani v. Berzain, 825 F.3d 1304, 1310 (11th Cir. 2016) (“We construe the statute’s silence as exactly that: silence.” (quoting EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 2028, 2033, 192 L. Ed. 2d 35 (2015)(alteration adopted)))

The Court ultimately overturned the district court’s granting of summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceeding on the implied warranty of merchantability claim.