Werwinski v. Ford Motor Company
Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.
Status
More on how this was screened
Earl v. NVR, Inc. set aside Werwinski’s holding that Pennsylvania’s economic loss doctrine bars claims under the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, after intervening Pennsylvania decisions changed the governing state law. The two confirmed treatments are listed below; Werwinski’s other holdings are unaffected by Earl’s ruling.
32 later cases cite Werwinski v. Ford Motor Company; 32 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.
Relying on Werwinski v. Ford Motor Company?
This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.
Treatments
Abrogated
-
The Third Circuit set aside Werwinski’s rule applying Pennsylvania’s economic loss doctrine to consumer protection claims after intervening Pennsylvania decisions changed state law.
Earl v. NVR, Inc. · Third Circuit · filed
We acknowledge and appreciate the concern raised by the Court in Dixon, and in so doing have determined that it is now appropriate to set aside our holding in Werwinski with respect to the economic loss doctrine’s application to UTPCPL claims.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Criticized
-
O’Keefe criticized Werwinski’s prediction that Pennsylvania’s economic loss doctrine barred statutory consumer protection claims, finding it inconsistent with Pennsylvania law.
O’Keefe v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC · U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania · filed
A Third Circuit panel in Werwinski v. Ford Motor Co., 286 F.3d 661 (2002), held that Pennsylvania’s common law economic loss doctrine trumped Pennsylvania’s statutory consumer protection statute. The panel held that consumers who allege they were intentionally defrauded may only recover actual damages. We cannot follow the panel’s decision when it is not in harmony with Pennsylvania state law because: (1) in Pennsylvania common law may not overrule legislative intent and violate a statute; (2) Pennsylvania courts have refused to apply the economic loss doctrine in consumer common law intentional fraud suits; (3) Pennsylvania courts have allowed treble damage awards in consumer fraud cases pursuant to the UTPCPL without reference to the economic loss doctrine; (4) Pennsylvania courts since Werwinski have continued to do so; and (5) the panel based its decision entirely on a U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin case applying Wisconsin law which is not binding on Pennsylvania courts.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Does this case still carry your argument?
Describe your facts. Ezel reads Werwinski v. Ford Motor Company and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace