Beverly Zylstra v. DRV, LLC
8 F.4th 597
7th Cir.2021Background
- Bernard and Beverly Zylstra bought a new DRV RV for ~$91,559; it carried a one‑year limited warranty requiring written notice within 30 days of discovery and that the owner present the RV to the selling dealer or DRV (or notify DRV if the selling dealer refused).
- After delivery the Zylstras compiled multiple "punch lists" of mostly minor defects; initial factory/dealer tweaks occurred before and after pickup; Plaza RV (an authorized dealer) first performed warranty repairs on June 27, 2017 (RV held 51 days).
- On September 11, 2017 the Zylstras again presented items to Plaza RV, including complaints that the black holding tank "leaks" and was "hard to close." Repairs were completed December 21, 2017; Zylstras then stored the RV until a January 2018 trip to Texas.
- During the Texas trip the black tank leaked; an independent mobile technician cleaned and replaced valve gaskets. The Zylstras did not thereafter present the contamination/odor issue to DRV or an authorized dealer and did not seek reimbursement. They stopped using the RV and filed suit on August 27, 2018.
- The district court granted summary judgment for DRV (May 18, 2020). On appeal the Zylstras argued genuine disputes of material fact, breach of express and implied warranties and the MMWA, choice‑of‑law error on the implied warranty, and Indiana Deceptive Consumer Sales Act (IDCSA) violations. The Seventh Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DRV breached the express warranty / MMWA by failing to cure defects (including black tank contamination) | Zylstra: numerous unresolved defects (including a sewage leak that made the RV unusable) and excessive out‑of‑service time meant warranty failed of its essential purpose and federal MMWA claim follows | DRV: warranty requires notice and presentation for repair; many items were repaired; Zylstras never re‑presented the RV to DRV after the sewage leak; time out of service was not unreasonable | Affirmed for DRV. Zylstras failed to give DRV a reasonable opportunity to repair (never presented the black tank leak after Texas); other defects were fixed in ≤3 attempts; out‑of‑service days did not defeat warranty purpose. |
| Implied warranty and choice of law | Zylstra: district court should have conducted choice‑of‑law and apply Indiana law; implied warranty claim exists | DRV: Illinois law (requiring privity) applies; in any event plaintiff failed to give opportunity to cure | Affirmed. Implied‑warranty argument waived on appeal; substantively fails—either no opportunity to cure (Indiana) or lack of privity (Illinois). |
| IDCSA deceptive‑practice claims (uncured and incurable acts) | Zylstra: breaches and misrepresentations about RV quality and warranty rights supported IDCSA claims | DRV: no actionable misrepresentation; advertising was puffery; breach of contract alone insufficient; no evidence of intent to deceive | Affirmed. Claims fail: alleged breaches not established; advertising is nonactionable puffery; no proof of intent for incurable deception; stalling/delay claims rejected. |
| Whether factual disputes precluded summary judgment | Zylstra: many disputed facts about repairs and communications create triable issues | DRV: those disputes are immaterial because plaintiff failed to meet the legal condition precedent (opportunity to repair) | Affirmed. Disputed facts were not material to outcome; summary judgment proper as a matter of law. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mathews v. REV Recreation Grp., Inc., 931 F.3d 619 (7th Cir. 2019) (interpreting Indiana law to require more than two repair attempts to constitute a reasonable opportunity to cure).
- General Motors Corp. v. Sheets, 818 N.E.2d 49 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (Lemon law standard supports multiple presentations to establish failure of essential purpose).
- Voelker v. Porsche Cars N. Am., Inc., 353 F.3d 516 (7th Cir. 2003) (Illinois law requires privity for implied‑warranty economic damages).
- McKinney v. State, 693 N.E.2d 65 (Ind. 1998) (breach of contract alone does not automatically state an IDCSA claim).
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment standards).
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1992) (affidavits and supporting evidence must be adequate to create a genuine issue of material fact).
- Payne v. Pauley, 337 F.3d 767 (7th Cir. 2003) (guidance on using summary judgment where many factual disputes are presented).