Case Law Update: Dawson v. Generac — Tampa Federal Court Denies Class Certification for Florida Generator Owners' Hurricane Warranty Claims

A federal judge in Tampa has refused to let Florida owners of Generac 22kW and 24kW home standby generators sue as a class over generators that allegedly quit during hurricanes. In Dawson v. Generac Power Systems, Inc., No. 8:24-cv-2412 (M.D. Fla.), James W. Dawson, Jr. and Edmond C. Hill, Jr. sued Generac individually and on behalf of other Florida generator owners for breach of express warranty. On October 21, 2026, U.S. District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle denied the motion for class certification (Doc. 136), so the case continues only on the named plaintiffs' individual claims.

What the owners alleged

According to the order, the plaintiffs claim that Generac's 22kW and 24kW standby generators "contain an underlying defect which causes the units to suddenly stop working during a power outage caused by a hurricane or inclement weather." Their theory is that storms produce "wet air" that the alternator pulls in, where moisture degrades components and shorts out the unit. The plaintiffs cited failures in the 2022, 2023, and 2024 hurricane seasons and alleged that a Generac log shows more than 1,200 owners had the same "1902 error code" failure; Generac responded that the code means a generator "shut down due to undervoltage," and the log was not filed with the motion.

The proposed class was "[a]ll Florida residents who purchased a Generac home standby generator, models 22KW and 24KW, between 2020–2024, designed with a rear airflow vent that failed to provide power during a hurricane or rain event." These remain allegations.

Why the court said no

The court held that the class was adequately defined and ascertainable. But under Rule 23(b)(3), common questions must predominate over individual ones and a class action must be superior to individual suits, and the court found both missing.

The key move was to break a Florida express warranty claim into its elements. Citing Dunham-Bush, Inc. v. Thermo-Air Service, Inc., 351 So. 2d 351 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977), the court listed them as "(1) the sale of goods; (2) an express warranty; (3) breach of the warranty; (4) notice to seller of the breach; and (5) the injuries sustained by the buyer as a result of the breach of the express warranty." The sale, the warranty, and its material terms were common to everyone, and the plaintiffs' expert could offer class-wide evidence that the models are susceptible to storm failure. But the court found no class-wide proof that each owner's generator actually failed because of the alleged defect, and three elements would require owner-by-owner proof:

• Breach. Generac's written warranty promises the generator "will be free from defects in material and workmanship" and that, "at its discretion, [Generac will] repair or replace" defective parts. Coverage depends on activation, registration with proof of purchase, and maintenance, and can be lost through unapproved parts, modifications, or improper mounting. The court cited a chart Generac compiled from the plaintiffs' depositions showing "at least ten of the twenty-nine plaintiffs had violated the warranty," and noted that "all but six" deposed plaintiffs admitted Generac repaired their generator and that it now works.
• Notice. Florida's Uniform Commercial Code requires a buyer to "notify the seller of breach or be barred from any remedy" (§ 672.607(3)(a), Fla. Stat.). Quoting an earlier Middle District decision, the court described that as "a highly individualized inquiry," and observed that some deposed plaintiffs conceded they never gave Generac notice.
• Damages. Although every owner sought the generator's value, the court found that twelve of twenty-eight deposed plaintiffs also claimed emotional distress damages, which the court, citing Eleventh Circuit precedent, treated as "inherently individual."

The court concluded a class trial "would devolve into 'lengthy and particularized inquir[ies]—in essence, a series of mini-trials.'" For the same reason it found no superiority, denied certification, and denied as moot Generac's motion to exclude the expert report.

What this means if you have a generator or appliance warranty claim

This is one district court's procedural ruling. It does not decide whether any Generac unit is defective, does not bind other courts, and says nothing about how the named plaintiffs' claims will come out. It does show how Florida warranty claims are tested:

• Register and maintain the product. Warranty coverage in this case turned on activation, registration with proof of purchase, and documented maintenance. Keep the registration confirmation and service records.
• Give written notice of the breach. Under § 672.607(3)(a), a buyer who fails to notify the seller within a reasonable time can lose all remedies. Report the failure in writing to the manufacturer, not just the installer.
• Document the repair history. The court treated a completed repair that left the unit working as a reason breach may not exist at all. If repairs did not fix the problem, record each recurrence with dates and error codes.
• Do not count on a class action. After this ruling, a Florida owner with a storm-failure claim against Generac would generally have to pursue it individually, subject to the warranty's dispute terms and the limitations period.

Manufacturer warranties and separately purchased home warranty plans work differently; see our Florida home warranty claims guide. More rulings are collected on our Case Law & Industry Insights page.

Case details

• Case: James W. Dawson, Jr. and Edmond C. Hill, Jr., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Generac Power Systems, Inc.
• Court: U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division
• Case number: 8:24-cv-2412-KKM-LSG (filed October 18, 2024)
• Ruling: Order denying Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification (Doc. 109) and denying as moot the Motion to Exclude the expert report (Doc. 112); Doc. 136, signed October 21, 2026, by U.S. District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle
• Status: Case continues on the named plaintiffs' individual claims

This article summarizes a court ruling for general informational purposes as of October 27, 2026, and is not legal advice. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. If you have a dispute over a product warranty or service contract, Louis Law Group offers a free case evaluation.