Fourth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of PAX Tire Case

Today, in a published opinion, the Fourth Circuit affirmed a Maryland district court's dismissal of a suit involving Honda minivans equipped with the PAX tire system in Robinson v. American Honda Motor Co. Inc. et al.

As summarized by the court: "Through a purpose-built wheel-rim and tire combination, PAX System tires are designed to provide a 'run-flat' capability. If a tire is punctured, the minivan can still be driven at speeds of up to 55 mph for a distance of up to 125 miles." (see here for additional information on the PAX system). Because of the system's "unique wheel-rim and tire combination, no other brand or model of tire will fit on the minivan unless the wheels themselves are replaced." This system is standard for the Touring model of the Honda Odyssey.

The plaintiff brought a class action suit against Honda and Michelin, which included claims of breach of express and implied warranties, as well as consumer fraud. Essentially, these claims centered around alleged rapid or uneven wear on the tire tread, necessitating more frequent replacement than conventional tires.

After construing the warranties on the tires, the court rejected the express warranty claim, concluding that the plaintiff's "efforts to manufacture a promise concerning tread wear out of a warranty provision plainly intended to limit warranty coverage are unavailing."

The court also affirmed the dismissal of the breach of implied warranty claim, concluding that:

Robinson’s claim fails because he has not alleged that his Michelin PAX System tires have a shorter tread life than other run-flat tires, and this is the proper standard of comparison. To hold otherwise would require all automobile tires to last as long as the standard passenger tire and would elevate durability above all other considerations in the manufacture and design of tires. This procrustean standard would severely limit the ability of tire and automobile manufacturers to create the specialized tires that consumers may desire. The purchaser of a set of tires—and not the courts—should be given the power to decide what balance of durability, performance, special features, and safety is best suited to his needs. If Robinson desired tires with the same tread life as standard passenger tires, he could have purchased a minivan wearing standard passenger tires.

Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the plaintiff's suit pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6).