766 F.Supp.3d 798
N.D. Ind.2025Background
- Plaintiffs Tierra Herriage and Jesse Jenkins purchased a 2021 Forest River Berkshire motorhome with a 1-year/12,000-mile limited warranty.
- Shortly after purchase, the motorhome experienced persistent water intrusion through the roof, resulting in extensive mold damage, despite multiple repair attempts.
- Plaintiffs allege significant health effects and loss of use due to the water/mold damage, and bring claims for breach of warranty (express and implied), breach of contract, violation of the Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act, and Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA).
- Forest River moved for summary judgment on all claims, asserting various procedural bars and factual arguments.
- The court addresses the enforceability of limitations periods, choice of law for the consumer protection claim, adequacy of repair opportunities, and the appropriate application of the economic loss doctrine.
- The court grants summary judgment only on the alleged contract for repair of leak damage, denying the motion as to all other claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Statute of Limitations on Warranty | Limitations period in warranty is void; suit is timely | Suit not timely; 90-day window after warranty expiration | Warranty limitations period excised; suit is timely |
| Reasonable Opportunity to Repair | Major defect; Forest River had enough chances to repair | Not enough opportunities for repair, especially on roof leak | For major defects, fewer than 3 attempts may suffice; jury question |
| Breach of Contract (Repair Agreement) | Forest River had a contract to fix all resulting leak damage | No evidence of contract: no offer/acceptance/consideration | No contract existed; summary judgment for Forest River |
| DTPA (Texas Consumer Protection) | Misrepresentations & warranty breach support DTPA claim | Economic loss doctrine bars DTPA recovery | Breach of warranty can underpin DTPA claim; not barred |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standard and burden-shifting)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (standard for summary judgment: genuine dispute of material fact)
- Mathews v. REV Recreation Grp., Inc., 931 F.3d 619 (elements of warranty claim under Indiana law)
- Kenworth of Indianapolis, Inc. v. Seventy-Seven Ltd., 134 N.E.3d 370 (future performance warranty requirements)
- Martin Rispens & Son v. Hall Farms, Inc., 621 N.E.2d 1078 (failure of essential purpose doctrine)