Pella Corporation v. Saltzman

Dist. Ct. did not err in certifying two classes of plaintiffs in class action alleging that defendant-window manufacturer committed consumer fraud by not publicly declaring to plaintiffs (purchasers of defendant's windows) role that purported design flaw in windows played in allowing wood rot that ultimately required replacement of said windows. While defendants argued that consumer fraud actions are not suitable for class action treatment, class action treatment was appropriate where subject windows allegedly suffered from single inherent design flaw, and where Dist. Ct. split classes into two groups of purchasers who either had or had not replaced windows. Moreover, under Dist. Ct.'s scheme, issues of probable cause and damages would be excluded from issues to be resolved by class action jury, and individual class members, having received verdict on design flaw issue, would be then be required to establish causation and damages issues in their individual claims against defendant.