Martin v. Thor Motor Coach Inc
3:20-cv-00013
N.D. Ind.May 6, 2022Background:
- March 24, 2018: Clarence and Terri Martin purchased a 2018 Thor Hurricane M29 RV manufactured by Thor Motor Coach; Thor provided a written limited warranty containing a 15‑month contractual limitations period.
- Plaintiffs alleged multiple defects that diminished value and impaired use, gave Thor reasonable opportunities to repair, and exhausted the warranty’s repair and back‑up remedies.
- Plaintiffs allege the warranty remedies “failed of their essential purpose” and the defects are “incurable”; they seek >$50,000 (MMWA threshold).
- The district court previously dismissed express and implied warranty claims as time‑barred by the 15‑month warranty term but allowed plaintiffs to proceed on the failure‑of‑essential‑purpose theory and certified a state‑law question to the Indiana Supreme Court.
- Indiana Supreme Court declined to answer the certified question; the district court holds that Indiana recognizes an independent UCC‑based claim when a warranty’s exclusive remedies fail of their essential purpose, accrual occurs when those remedies so fail, and the MMWA supplies federal jurisdiction for that claim.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Indiana recognizes an independent claim when a warranty’s remedies fail of their essential purpose | Yes — an independent UCC‑based claim (breach/contract) is available | No — the remedy doctrine is not a standalone cause; footnote dicta cannot create a new claim | Yes — Indiana law (Kenworth/Perry/UCC) permits an independent failure‑of‑essential‑purpose claim |
| When the failure‑of‑essential‑purpose claim accrues for limitations purposes | Accrues when the exclusive warranty remedies fail (when breach occurs) | Accrues at tender/delivery triggering the warranty’s 15‑month limitation | Accrues when the seller’s repair/replacement remedy fails its essential purpose; delivery triggers separate warranty claims |
| Whether the MMWA permits federal jurisdiction over this independent claim | MMWA provides a federal vehicle for state warranty/contract claims alleging failure of remedies | MMWA does not create independent liability and may not cover the theory | MMWA supplies federal jurisdiction to pursue the Indiana UCC‑based failure‑of‑essential‑purpose claim |
| Survival of express and implied warranty claims | Plaintiffs sought to pursue them | Thor argued they are time‑barred by the 15‑month contractual limitation | Express and implied warranty claims are dismissed as time‑barred; failure‑of‑essential‑purpose claim may proceed |
Key Cases Cited
- Kenworth of Indianapolis, Inc. v. Seventy-Seven Ltd., 134 N.E.3d 370 (Ind. 2019) (footnote envisioning a breach‑of‑contract action when an exclusive remedy fails its essential purpose).
- Perry v. Gulf Stream Coach, Inc., 814 N.E.2d 634 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (recognized a failure‑of‑essential‑purpose theory permitting UCC remedies to proceed to trial).
- Zylstra v. DRV, LLC, 8 F.4th 597 (7th Cir. 2021) (applied Indiana law treating failure‑of‑essential‑purpose as a breach theory under UCC § 2‑719).
- Mathews v. REV Recreational Grp., Inc., 931 F.3d 619 (7th Cir. 2019) (requires reasonable opportunity to cure before UCC remedies apply).
- Anderson v. Gulf Stream Coach, Inc., 662 F.3d 775 (7th Cir. 2011) (MMWA operates as a gloss on state warranty claims and can provide federal jurisdiction).
- Schimmer v. Jaguar Cars, Inc., 384 F.3d 402 (7th Cir. 2004) (discusses MMWA damages threshold and federal jurisdictional scope).
- Rheem Mfg. Co. v. Phelps Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc., 746 N.E.2d 941 (Ind. 2001) (limited remedies and consequential‑damage limitations may be enforceable unless unconscionable).
- H.B. Fuller Co. v. Kinetic Systems, Inc., 932 F.2d 681 (7th Cir. 1991) (explains that remedies presuppose a breach that calls warranty remedial terms into play).