(On behalf of Plaintiff and the Ford PremiumCARE ESP Subclass)   (on behalf of Plaintiff and the Class and Tennessee Subclass)   (on behalf of Plaintiff and the Class and Tennessee Subclass)   (on behalf of Plaintiff and the Class and Tennessee Subclass)   (on behalf of Plaintiff and the Class)   10.  Upon information and belief, Defendant began installing aluminum panels into  the frames of its vehicles in or about the year 2000. Specifically, Defendant began installing  aluminum panels into its Ford Expedition models in or about 2000, its Ford Explorer models in  or about 2002, and its Ford Mustang models in or about 2005.    11.  Defendant replaced heavier steel hoods – the section of the frame covering the  engine – with lighter aluminum panels in order to reduce vehicle weight and increase fuel  efficiency.    12.  However, Defendant’s aluminum hoods carry an inherent, latent defect: they  quickly corrode and cause their overlaying paint layer to bubble, peel, and/or blister.   14.  Within a mere two years, on December 11, 2006, Ford reissued this same warning  about the Corrosion Defect to its service technicians in TSB 06-25-15 (“2006 TSB”) – titled  “ALUMINUM BODY PANELS—CORROSION—SERVICE TIP” – which applied to Ford  Explorers from model years 2002–2007. Defendant intended for the 2006 TSB to supersede the  2004 TSB, and repeated the same concerns about the Corrosion Defect:  Ford’s Scientific Research Laboratory has performed a number of tests on vehicle  body parts returned for corrosion related concerns. Testing has revealed that the  aluminum corrosion was caused by iron particles working their way into the  aluminum body part, prior to it being painted.    15.  Ten years later, Defendant still had not developed an answer for the Corrosion  Defect. On February 26, 2016, Defendant issued a third TSB on the same problem. TSB 16-0028  (“2016 TSB”) – titled “Aluminum Panel Corrosion” – covered Ford Explorers from model years  2002-2016:  40.  Plaintiff purchased a new 2015 Ford Explorer in January 2015.    41.  Accordingly, the Extended Corrosion Warranty on Plaintiff’s 2015 Ford does not  expire until January 2020.   42.  Additionally, when she purchased her Explorer in January 2015, Plaintiff also  purchased Defendant’s PremiumCARE ESP for 6 years or 75,000 miles for a price of $1,377.36.  As part of her PremiumCARE purchase, Plaintiff was merely provided with Defendant’s  marketing brochure and was only required to complete Defendant’s standard ESP registration  form.    44.  On February 19, 2019, shortly after she discovered the Corrosion Defect, Plaintiff  brought her Explorer to the Ford dealership where she bought it – Landers Ford in Collierville,  Tennessee – in order to have her corrosion damage repaired.    45.  Plaintiff believed that her corrosion damage was covered by her Ford New  Vehicle Warranty, and, if not, her PremiumCare ESP.   46.  Even though Plaintiff’s Explorer was still within the Extended Corrosion  Warranty, and Plaintiff’s PremiumCARE ESP was still active, the dealership refused to repair  Plaintiff’s corrosion damage because it considered her warranty coverage to be expired and the  damage not to be covered by the PremiumCARE ESP. On information and belief, Landers Ford  refused to repair Plaintiff’s corrosion damage because her aluminum hood had not perforated  completely, and considered the corrosion damage outside the scope of the PremiumCARE ESP.    47.  The paint bubbling and other effects of the Corrosion Defect on Plaintiff’s Ford  Explorer have resulted in a significant decrease in its resale value. The decreased value, and the  money needed to even attempt to remedy the problem, is greater than simply the cost of a new  paint job, because the underlying defect in the aluminum hood would cause any new paint to  bubble as well.     49.  Plaintiff brings this action as a class action pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3)  of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of  all similarly situated persons as the Court may determine to be appropriate for class certification  treatment, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b). Plaintiff seeks to  represent the following national class (“Class”) and two subclasses (“Subclasses”) as follows:  The Class: All persons in the United States and its territories who, within  the applicable statute of limitations period, and as shown by Defendant’s  records, purchased or leased a new or used Ford Explorer.  The Ford PremiumCARE ESP Subclass: All persons in the United States  and its territories who, within the applicable statute of limitations period,  and as shown by Defendant’s records, (1) purchased or leased a new or  used Ford Explorer and (2) purchased a Ford PremiumCARE Extended  Service Plan.  The Tennessee Subclass: All Tennessee residents who, within the  applicable statute of limitations period, and as shown by Defendant’s  records, purchased or leased a new or used Ford Explorer.   50.  Plaintiff’s claims are typical of those of the other Class and Subclass members. If  each Class and Subclass member were to bring their claims in a separate, individual action, such  individual claims would require proof of many of the same facts, would seek the same relief, and  would rely upon the same theories of recovery.   52.  Absent this suit proceeding as a class action, most members of the Class and  Subclass would find the cost of litigating their individual claims to be prohibitively expensive  and would not be able to obtain any effective remedy for their damages. Treating common  questions of law and fact on a class wide basis is superior to multiple individual actions because  doing so would conserve the courts’ resources, as well as the resources of the parties, and would  promote consistency and efficiency of adjudication.   53.  Defendant has acted and failed to act on grounds applicable to both Plaintiff and  the other members of the Class and Subclass, necessitating the imposition of uniform relief to  ensure compatible standards of conduct toward the members of the Class and Subclass, and  making injunctive or corresponding declaratory relief appropriate for the Class and Subclass as a  whole.   54.  The factual and legal bases of Defendant’s liability to Plaintiff and to the other  members of the Class and Subclass are the same, causing injury to Plaintiff and to all of the other  members of the Class and Subclass. Plaintiff and the other members of the Class and Subclass  have all suffered harm and damages due to the unlawful and wrongful conduct of Defendant.    55.  Ford brand vehicles are some of the most popular vehicles sold in the United  States, and the Ford Explorer (Plaintiff’s model vehicle) is one of Defendant’s flagship models.  Defendant sells thousands of Ford Explorers every month, and upon information and belief, there  are tens of thousands of members of the Class and at least hundreds of members of each  Subclass, such that joinder of all members is impracticable.   57.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference all preceding allegations as though fully set  forth herein.   58.  Plaintiff and the other Class members are “consumers” within the meaning of 15  6.  Defendant has produced Ford Explorers since the 1991 model year.    7.  Of late, Defendant’s Ford Explorer marketing materials and brochures have  touted the model’s structural strength. For example, Defendant’s 2011 Explorer marketing  brochure claimed: “Capability: 2011 Explorer has a body/frame that’s lighter yet stronger than  before.”   74.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference all preceding allegations as though fully set  forth herein.   75.  Defendant’s PremiumCARE ESP is a “service contract” within the meaning of 15  86.  Plaintiff and the Class and Subclass members each contracted with Defendant,  through its dealer-agents and its related entities, to purchase Ford Explorer vehicles, and the  purchase price paid by Plaintiff and the Class and Subclass members constituted substantial  consideration for the vehicles.   87.  The Ford Explorer vehicles purchased by Plaintiff and the Class and Subclass  members contained the inherent, latent Corrosion Defect that existed at the time the vehicles left  the hands of Defendant.   88.  Defendant breached the implied warranty of merchantability that was provided by  Defendant to each vehicle owner, as the Ford Explorer vehicles purchased by Plaintiff and the  Class and Subclass members were not fit for the ordinary purposes for which they were to be  used. The purchased vehicles were objectively unreasonable and would not pass inspection as  conforming goods within the trade, because at the time of sale they had defective aluminum  hoods that quickly corrode and cause their overlaying paint layer to bubble, peel, and/or blister,  and will cause rust and corrosion, during the lifetime of the vehicle.   9.  What Defendant has failed to communicate to prospective Ford Explorer buyers,  however, is that its decision to move to a lighter vehicle frame has come at a significant price for  Explorer owners.  Defendant’s Unresolved Aluminum Body Panel Corrosion   90.  Given the latent nature of the Corrosion Defect and Defendant’s concealment of  the defect, any limitations period that would otherwise bar the claims of Plaintiff or the Class or  Subclass members should be tolled. Additionally, Plaintiff and the Class and Subclass members  continue to suffer a violation of their legally protected interests each day that Defendant fails to  remedy the defect and make them whole.  91.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference all preceding allegations as though fully set  forth herein.   92.  In connection with the purchase or lease of Plaintiff’s and the Class and Subclass  members’ Ford Explorers, as detailed above, Defendant provided Plaintiff and the Class and  Subclass members with a warranty covering defects in material and workmanship for three years  or 36,000 miles, and an extended warranty covering corrosion damage relating to such defects  for two additional years.    93.  Defendant’s warranties were a basis of the bargain reached when Plaintiff and the  Class and Subclass members purchased or leased their Ford Explorers.    95.  Plaintiff and the Class and Subclass members have given Defendant several years  of reasonable opportunity to cure its breach of express warranty, or else were not required to do  so because any such opportunity to cure would be futile.   96.  These damages include, inter alia: the decrease in resale value of the vehicles  resulting from the Corrosion Defect, increased rust and corrosion and the paint layer bubbling,  peeling, and/or blistering; expectation damages as a result of Plaintiff and the Class and Subclass  members being denied the benefit of the bargain they agreed to with Defendant; and any further  monetary or other damages that Plaintiff and the Class and Subclass members have incurred  and/or will incur in order to effectively remedy their vehicles’ problems related to the Corrosion  Defect. Defendant has been provided notice of the issues raised in this Count, as detailed above.    97.  Given the latent nature of the Corrosion Defect and Defendant’s concealment of  the defect, any limitations period that would otherwise bar the claims of Plaintiff or the Class or  Subclass members should be tolled  98.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference all preceding allegations as though fully set  forth herein.  