If you live in Florida and purchased a pair of nonprescription Costa Del Mar sunglasses within the four years before Jan. 31, 2018, you are part of a class action lawsuit certified April 12 in Jacksonville.
Brendan Haney, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is suing the Daytona Beach-based sunglass manufacturer for claims arising from the sale of nonpromotional, nonprescription Costa sunglasses.
The complaint was filed July 28, 2017. A motion for class certification was filed Nov. 1, 2018. Hearings on the motion that led to certification were convened Dec. 4-6, 2018, and Feb. 25, 2019.
“For 35 years Costa has been committed to making performance sunglasses and servicing its loyal consumers. This lawsuit does not change Costa’s commitment to either. The company respectfully disagrees with the court’s rulings and intends to appeal,” said attorney Sara Holladay-Tobias, a partner with McGuireWoods in Jacksonville who is representing Costa Del Mar.
Haney and the class members are represented by Peter Hargitai, a partner with Holland & Knight in Jacksonville.
The lawsuit alleges that Costa promotes and advertises its sunglasses as being “backed for life” and refers to its warranty as “the best in the industry” with “no gimmicks” and “no disclaimers.”
The complaint further contends that on the side of every Costa sunglasses box, the company warrants that if its sunglasses are damaged by accident, normal wear and tear or misuse, the company will replace scratched lenses, frames and other parts “for a nominal fee.”
The lawsuit states that the “nominal fee” is false, deceptive and misleading.
The lawsuit asserts two counts against Costa.
Count 1 is brought under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act on behalf of all citizens of Florida who purchased Costa sunglasses between Feb. 1, 2014, and Jan. 31, 2018.
Count 2 is brought under the federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act on behalf of all Florida citizens who, within five years preceding Jan. 31, 2018, were charged a fee by Costa to repair or replace its sunglasses.
Haney says he purchased a pair of Costa sunglasses in Jacksonville for about $150. The sunglasses later were damaged when one of the lenses shattered.
He sent his sunglasses to Costa for evaluation and paid the cost of shipping. After inspecting the sunglasses, Costa advised Haney that he would need to pay $89, plus tax and shipping and handling, for a total of $105.18 for Costa to repair his sunglasses.
According to court documents, Costa’s position is that “nominal” is synonymous with “reasonable.”
The plaintiffs cite Black’s Law Dictionary’s definition of nominal as “trifling, especially as compared to what would be expected” while it defines reasonable as “Fair, proper or moderate under the circumstances; sensible.”
Pending appeal, the case is being heard by Circuit Judge Adrian Soud.