that the vehicles “suffer[ed] from defects” was an insufficient allegation of damages. The court specifically held that it was not enough that the product might be defective; the plaintiffs could, not recover under any theory of recovery if the alleged defect did not manifest itself in the plaintiffs’ vehicles. Id. In so concluding, the court identified numerous cases recognizing this basic principle, stating, Courts have been particularly vigilant in requiring allegations of injury or damages in products liability cases. Lee v. General Motors Corp., 950 F.Supp. 170, 171-74 (S.D.Miss.1996) (dismissing plaintiffs claims of inherently defective detachable fiberglass roofs for failure to plead sufficient damages); Yost v. General Motors Corp., 651 F.Supp. 656, 657-58 (D.N.J.1986) (<HOLDING>); Feinstein v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 535
holding that the plaintiffs complaint failed to state a claim for purposeful and unlawful discrimination holding that district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to permit a design defect products liability expert to submit an untimely addendum stating a new claim of failure to warn after defense expert refuted the basis of original design defect opinion holding that the labeling act did not preempt design defect claim against cigarette manufacturer holding that complaint alleging design defect likely to cause damage failed to state a claim holding that plaintiffs complaint failed to state a claim under section 1 of the sherman act