Merchain v. Thor Motor Coach, Inc., 577 F.Supp.3d 886

Blanca and Philip Merchain (California residents) bought a new Thor-manufactured RV on August 28, 2018; the RV came with a written limited warranty (12 months or 15,000 miles) and an express clause requiring any action for breach to be commenced within 15 months.
The warranty contained a choice-of-law clause designating Indiana law for disputes (including statutes of limitations) and expressly stated it did not promise future performance.
The Merchains discovered multiple defects, sought repairs from Thor/authorized facilities, and alleged repairs were untimely/unsatisfactory.
The Merchains filed suit on May 26, 2020, asserting only a claim under California’s Song-Beverly Warranty Act (SBWA) for Thor’s failure to conform the RV to the warranty.
Thor moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing the SBWA claim was time-barred; the district court granted the motion and dismissed the SBWA claim with prejudice because it was filed after the applicable limitations period expired.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Which law governs the statute-of-limitations question?	Merchain: SBWA-based claim should be governed by California law (exception under Horvath).	Thor: Warranty’s choice-of-law clause requires application of Indiana law.	Indiana law governs (warranty clause controls; Horvath exception does not apply).
Can the parties validly shorten the UCC 4-year limitations period?	Merchain: SBWA claim cannot be shortened by warranty; shortening would improperly limit SBWA remedies.	Thor: Warranty’s 15-month clause is a valid contractual shortening under the UCC.	The 15-month limitations clause is valid and applies; it is procedural and does not extinguish substantive SBWA rights.
When does the cause of action accrue (tender vs. discovery rule)?	Merchain: SBWA and repair-precondition support the discovery rule (accrual upon discovery).	Thor: Warranty does not extend to future performance; accrual is at tender of delivery.	Accrual occurs at tender of delivery because under Indiana law the warranty did not extend to future performance; discovery rule does not apply.
Was the Merchains’ SBWA claim timely?	Merchain: (argued accrual later / dispute over period) — claim timely under their view.	Thor: Delivery Aug 28, 2018 → 15-month deadline Nov 28, 2019; suit filed May 26, 2020 → time-barred.	Claim was time-barred; suit filed after the 15-month limitations period → dismissal with prejudice.

Kenworth of Indianapolis, Inc. v. Seventy-Seven Ltd., 134 N.E.3d 370 (Ind. 2019) (Indiana rule defining when a warranty unambiguously extends to future performance).
Krieger v. Nick Alexander Imports, Inc., 234 Cal. App. 3d 205 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991) (SBWA supplements UCC warranty law and applied the discovery rule where warranty expressly guarantees future performance).
Horvath v. Davidson, 264 N.E.2d 328 (Ind. App. 1970) (choice-of-law exception when statute creates a new substantive right with its own time limit).
Yetter v. Ford Motor Co., 428 F. Supp. 3d 210 (N.D. Cal. 2019) (applies discovery-rule accrual under SBWA only where warranty expressly extends to future performance).
Birdsong v. Apple, Inc., 590 F.3d 955 (9th Cir. 2010) (SBWA claims are tied to underlying warranty-law breach).
Unite Here Loc. 1 v. Hyatt Corp., 862 F.3d 588 (7th Cir. 2017) (standard for judgment on the pleadings).
N. Ind. Gun & Outdoor Shows v. City of South Bend, 163 F.3d 449 (7th Cir. 1998) (judgment-on-pleadings standard explaining that dismissal is appropriate when the nonmoving party cannot prove facts supporting relief).
Kissel v. Rosenbaum, 579 N.E.2d 1322 (Ind. Ct. App. 1991) (statute of limitations is procedural and limits time to sue without altering substantive rights).