In Re Zurn Pex Plumbing Products Liability Litigation

267 F.R.D. 549 (2010)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

D designed a cross-linked polyethylene plumbing system, commonly referred to as 'pex,' as an alternative to polybutylene systems and copper plumbing systems. When the pex plumbing system is properly assembled, the crimp system design places stress on the brass fittings. Because the brass fittings used in Zurn's pex plumbing system were made from brass with a high zinc content, the fittings were claimed to be susceptible to premature failings due to phenomena such as dezincification and stress-corrosion cracking. Ps are individuals who own a home with a Zurn pex plumbing system. Ps allege that defective fittings used in the pex system caused their plumbing systems to leak resulting in damage to their properties. Ps allege D falsely represented the pex systems were of high quality, were reliable, and would last decades. Ps claim that D failed to adequately test the brass crimp fittings in their anticipated environments before marketing its product. Ps claim that D knew or should have known the brass crimp fittings were susceptible to premature failure from dezincification or stress corrosion and, therefore, knew or should have known these systems would fail. Cox (P) filed the first class action lawsuit in Minnesota state court for damages to their home from failed pex plumbing. Ds removed the case to federal court. More lawsuits followed. The Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation determined that the pex plumbing cases involved common questions of fact, and that centralization of the cases in Minnesota was appropriate. Ps now move the Court to certify this case as a class action. Ds moved to exclude portions of the testimony of Ps' experts. Ps urge that at the class certification stage, the scope of the inquiry to determine the admissibility of expert testimony should be limited to whether it 'is so flawed it cannot provide any information as to whether the requisites of class certification have been met.' Ds claim the court must conclusively rule on any challenge to the expert's qualifications or submissions before ruling on the class certification motion.