Chaudoin v. Thor Motor Coach, Inc.
2:15-cv-13871
E.D. Mich.Aug 15, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Edward Chaudoin bought a new 2015 Thor 37KT Challenger RV from General RV Center (GRV) on May 16, 2014; he also purchased a CornerStone extended service contract. Thor manufactured the RV and issued a one-page Limited Warranty (durations: 12 months/15,000 miles general; longer for certain frame components).
- At purchase Chaudoin signed multiple documents: a GRV Purchase Agreement and Warranty Disclaimer containing prominent "AS IS" and implied-warranty-disclaimer language, a Thor Registration & Acknowledgement referencing Thor's 1‑page Limited Warranty, a GRV Service Call Agreement, and other forms; Chaudoin admitted he only "skimmed" most paperwork and did not read the Limited Warranty.
- Plaintiff experienced numerous post-sale defects and repairs (multiple service visits; a step failure in Jan. 2015 caused him to fall and injure his face). He sent revocation-of-acceptance letters in April 2015; Thor took possession of the RV in May 2015 and retains it.
- Plaintiff sued GRV and Thor asserting ten claims (breach of express/implied warranties; revocation of acceptance; breach of contract; MMWA; unjust enrichment; MCPA; product liability; fraudulent/innocent misrepresentation; silent fraud). Defendants moved for summary judgment.
- The court granted summary judgment for both defendants on all claims except Plaintiff’s product liability claim (Count VII), which survived. Key legal rulings addressed (1) validity/effect of Thor’s Limited Warranty and its forum/limitations clauses, (2) enforceability of GRV’s "as is" disclaimers and whether GRV made or adopted any warranty/service contract for MMWA purposes, and (3) application of Michigan law and MCPA exemption for vehicle sales.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Thor violated the MMWA and Plaintiff is entitled to refund-or-replace remedy | Thor's warranty failed MMWA minimums or was not provided at sale, so MMWA relief should apply | Thor offered only a valid express limited warranty that complies with MMWA notice requirements; therefore §2304 refund/replace remedy does not apply | Court: Thor's Limited Warranty was valid and limited; not an MMWA "full" warranty — MMWA refund/replace remedy unavailable; MMWA claims against Thor dismissed |
| Whether GRV violated the MMWA by disclaiming implied warranties while selling/placing a service contract | GRV sold CornerStone service contract and executed a Service Call Agreement — §2308 forbids disclaimers when a supplier makes a written warranty or enters a service contract | GRV did not itself make a written warranty nor enter into a service contract; selling a third‑party service contract or offering service facilitation ≠ supplier warranty/service-contract under MMWA | Court: GRV did not make/assume a written warranty or service contract under MMWA; its disclaimer stands; MMWA claim vs. GRV dismissed |
| Validity/effect of GRV's and other "AS IS" and disclaimer language on state warranty/revocation claims | "As is" and disclaimers should not preclude relief because buyer was induced, warranty not provided at sale, or circumstances show disclaimers are inapplicable | Multiple conspicuous written disclaimers across documents, including specific reference to manufacturer warranties; buyer had notice via Thor acknowledgement; Michigan UCC permits such disclaimers if conspicuous and consistent | Court: GRV's disclaimers were valid and conspicuous; breach-of-warranty and revocation claims against GRV fail |
| Whether Thor's warranty limitations/time bar (90 days after warranty expiration) is enforceable | Limited Warranty was not provided at sale, the shortened limitations period is unconscionable or inapplicable; accrual rules favor plaintiff | Warranty validly limited duration; warranty disclaims future performance; UCC accrual runs at delivery; plaintiff sued after shortened window expired | Court: Thor's shortened limitations provision valid; breach-of-warranty claims vs. Thor are time-barred; summary judgment for Thor on warranty claims |
| Product liability for defective entry step causing injury | Plaintiff alleges step broke and caused fall/injury; Lippert recall and repair history support defect causation | Defendants point to lack of expert proof and that Lippert (non-party) manufactured the step; notice of non‑party fault | Court: Genuine fact issues exist on whether step was unreasonably unsafe when it left defendants' control; product liability claim survives summary judgment |
| MCPA applicability | Plaintiff invokes MCPA claims based on sales conduct | Sale of new motor vehicle/recreational vehicle is "specifically authorized" under regulatory scheme (Michigan Vehicle Code) and thus exempt from MCPA | Court: Sale of RV exempt under Mich. Comp. Laws §445.904(a) (following Jimenez reasoning); MCPA claim dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standard)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (genuine dispute standard at summary judgment)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (drawing inferences for nonmoving party)
- Lenawee County Bd. of Health v. Messerly, 417 Mich. 17 ("as is" clause and latent defects)
- Michels v. Monaco Coach Corp., 298 F. Supp. 2d 642 (privity and implied warranty discussion in RV context)
- Innovation Ventures v. Liquid Mfg., 499 Mich. 491 (elements of contract; mutual assent)
- Quality Prods. & Concepts Co. v. Nagel Precision, Inc., 469 Mich. 362 (mutual assent required to modify contract)
- DeFrain v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 491 Mich. 359 (contract interpretation and enforceability)