Jackson v. Eddy's LI RV Center, Inc.
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23987
| E.D.N.Y | 2012Background
- Plaintiff William D. Jackson purchased a 2005 Itasca Meridian from Eddy's on October 27, 2005, taking delivery on November 18, 2005; Winnebago manufactured the motor home and Freightliner manufactured the chassis.
- Purchase price was $162,508.75; plaintiff paid a $10,000 down payment and financed the remainder through Wachovia, with Wells Fargo servicing the loan.
- Plaintiff made all required payments until approximately August 2010, at which time he ceased paying on the loan.
- Plaintiff alleges the motor home was replete with structural and mechanical defects, making it unsafe, and was in repair over 24 months with more than 50 repair visits to Eddy's, all attempts at repair failing.
- Warranties were issued by Winnebago and Freightliner; a Star RV service contract appears in the record but Star RV is not a party and there are no clear allegations about Eddy's warranty.
- The complaint asserts four causes of action: breach of contract and breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranties of merchantability and fitness, and rescission, with removal to federal court after asserting Magnuson-Moss warranty Act claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are claims time-barred under NYUCC four-year limit? | Plaintiff argues possible tolling based on discovery or equity. | Defendants contend accrual at delivery; tolling not applicable to implied warranties. | All claims time-barred; accrual at delivery; no tolling saved claims. |
| Can Eddy's liability be based on implied warranties given lack of privity? | Privity or equivalent responsibility for sold motor home warranties exists. | No privity between Eddy's and plaintiff; implied warranties cannot be asserted. | No privity; implied warranty claims against Eddy's barred. |
| Are Winnebago and Freightliner liable on express/implied warranties given limitations and accrual? | Warranties extend to the motor home and chassis; tolling or expansive interpretation possible. | Warranties are limited to repair/replacement; exclude implied warranties; accrual fixed at delivery. | Claims time-barred; no tolling; no liability for implied warranties. |
| Are the Banks liable on financing agreement for warranty/contract claims? | Banks may bear responsibility via financing terms or service of loan. | Financing agreement contains no warranties; Banks are unrelated to performance of the motor home. | Banks dismissed; no warranty/contract liability. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for pleading a claim)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (heightened pleading standard after Twombly)
- Statler v. Dell, Inc., 775 F. Supp. 2d 474 (E.D.N.Y. 2011) (addressing discovery and accrual concepts in tolling)
- Orlando v. Novurania of America, Inc., 162 F. Supp. 2d 220 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (explicit extension of warranty to future performance required for tolling)
- Triangle Underwriters, Inc. v. Honeywell, Inc., 604 F.2d 737 (2d Cir. 1979) (repair attempts do not toll four-year statute of limitations)
- Arthur Jaffee Assoc. v. Bilsco Auto Serv., 58 N.Y.2d 993 (1983) (privity and warranty concepts in New York law)
- Shapiro v. Long Island Lighting Co., 71 A.D.2d 671, 418 N.Y.S.2d 948 (2d Dep’t 1979) (tender and warranty timing under NY law)
- Heller v. U.S. Suzuki Motor Corp., 64 N.Y.2d 407, 488 N.Y.S.2d 132, 477 N.E.2d 434 (1985) (accrual of products liability claims in sale of goods)
- Woods v. Maytag Co., 2010 WL 4314313 (E.D.N.Y. 2010) (discusses accrual and discovery notions under UCC)