Moldy Whirlpool Washing Machine Case Gets Second Wind

A class action lawsuit against Whirlpool alleging that certain front-loading machines can grow mold and begin to smell is having a tumultuous time.

The plaintiffs alleged that a design defect allows mold to grow.

First approved by a federal judge in Ohio, the class certification was approved by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals when it upheld the judge’s ruling back in 2010. Whirlpool subsequently appealed, sending the case to the Supreme Court, which reversed the decision and remanded the case for the Sixth Circuit Court’s consideration once again.

Now, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has reached its decision, published on July 18: the certification sticks.

The court found that putative members of the class action did share similar allegations about a design flaw, that led to mold and odors. Proof of damages will be reserved for individual determination.

The ruling breathes new life into a case that has been stalled since the Supreme Court questioned whether the class members would actually receive certification. Now, the plaintiffs’ allegation can once more become the focus of the case. The case was filed after two Ohio residents who had purchased front-loading washing machines manufactured by Whirlpool Corp. noticed the smell of mildew or mold coming from the machine and their clean laundry. Mold was allegedly witnessed on the door seal in one case, and the detergent dispenser in the other. The plaintiffs alleged that a design defect allows mold to grow, and their case - Glazer, et al. v. Whirlpool Corp., seeks compensation for tortious breach of warranty, negligent design and negligent failure to warn. The plaintiffs allege that Whirlpool’s Duet, DuetHT, DuetSport, and DuetSportHT models are susceptible to mold because of a poor design that prevents air circulation, which can allow mildew and mold to grow. The plaintiffs also claim that this can occur even when doors are left open to dry the machines, as recommended, and that they have suffered considerable expenses as a result.

Whirlpool had argued that there was not enough in common between members of the potential class to allow certification, as different models had been purchased by different members, and injuries were not the same across the class membership. They had also argued that as less than 3% of their products were affected, the case was not permissible under federal law.

It seems the courts disagreed – eventually. The case will now continue.