402 F.Supp.3d 467
N.D. Ind.2019Background
- AF Funds LLC purchased a new 2016 Tuscany 44MT RV from a Camping World dealer on Jan. 22–28, 2016; RV titled/registered in AF Funds (a business) and Myron Andersen personally guaranteed the loan.
- Thor’s written Limited Warranty disclaims dealer agency, excludes certain components (stove, radio, appliances) and limits written and implied warranties to 90 days if the RV is registered in a business name.
- After delivery the RV exhibited numerous defects; it underwent multiple repairs at Camping World locations in TX, FL, IA, CO and remained in repair for extended periods; some issues persisted after the 90-day period.
- Plaintiffs: AF Funds LLC (corporate purchaser), Myron Andersen (member and loan guarantor) and Ruth Andersen (spouse). Thor moved for summary judgment and separately to strike parts of Myron’s affidavit.
- Key legal tensions: (1) whether Myron and Ruth may pursue warranty/MMWA claims though the LLC purchased the RV; (2) whether Thor validly limited implied warranties under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (MMWA); (3) whether an UDAP/DTPA claim survives and which state law applies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing for Myron and Ruth to assert breach of warranty/MMWA | Myron and Ruth are users/beneficiaries of the RV and thus can sue (relying on family-use theory/MMWA definition) | Only the buyer/transferee or those entitled by warranty/state law can sue; the buyer was AF Funds LLC, not Myron or Ruth | Myron and Ruth lack status; summary judgment for Thor as to their warranty and MMWA claims |
| AF Funds LLC authorized suit / LLC membership ambiguity | Myron asserts he is sole member and authorized the suit | Thor argues manager/registered agent controls and the suit may be unauthorized | Court found Operating Agreement ambiguous and Thor did not prove lack of authorization; AF Funds LLC may proceed |
| Scope/duration of warranties; validity under MMWA (implied warranty limitation) | Plaintiffs contend implied warranty extends beyond 90 days and exclusions cannot bar coverage for installation/workmanship defects and raccoon damage during repairs | Thor contends express warranty is 90 days (business registration), limits implied warranty to same scope/duration, and many complaints are excluded (appliances, radios); dealer not agent | Court: Express warranty limited to 90 days and Thor entitled to summary judgment on breach of express warranty; but MMWA bars limiting implied-warranty scope (only duration may be limited if conscionable), so implied warranty claim survives summary judgment |
| Consumer-protection (DTPA/UDAP) choice-of-law and merits | Plaintiffs favor Indiana law and assert misrepresentations and warranty breaches support UDAP/DTPA claims | Thor says Texas law applies (purchase in TX) and that plaintiffs fail to plead/establish actionable misrepresentations; also raises economic-loss doctrine | Court applied Texas law (purchase/last event in TX). LLC (the buyer) may bring the statutory claim only to the extent it rests on breach of implied warranty; misrepresentation-based DTPA claim failed. Economic-loss argument did not defeat a warranty-based statutory claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Grant v. Trustees of Indiana University, 870 F.3d 562 (7th Cir.) (summary judgment standard and non-moving party burden)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (Supreme Court) (summary judgment and metaphysical doubt standard)
- Jackson v. Bank of America Corp., 711 F.3d 788 (7th Cir.) (unconscionability standard; enforceability of signed contracts)
- Carlisle v. Deere & Co., 576 F.3d 649 (7th Cir.) (general rule that dealer is not manufacturer’s agent; agency factors)
- Anderson v. Gulf Stream Coach, Inc., 662 F.3d 775 (7th Cir.) (MMWA operates as a gloss on state law warranty claims)
- Hyundai Motor America, Inc. v. Goodin, 822 N.E.2d 947 (Ind.) (MMWA limits on disclaiming/modifying implied warranties)
- Priebe v. Autobarn, Ltd., 240 F.3d 584 (7th Cir.) (MMWA remedies and relation to state warranty claims)
- Irmscher Suppliers, Inc. v. Schuler, 909 N.E.2d 1040 (Ind. Ct. App.) (elements of a breach of warranty claim)