960 F.3d 1264
10th Cir.2020Background
- The Platts bought a 2016 Winnebago Era RV with a 12-month New Vehicle Limited Warranty requiring a two-step cure: (1) present defects to an authorized Winnebago service facility; (2) if dealer repairs are inadequate, contact Winnebago Owner Relations in writing and give Winnebago an opportunity to repair (including Winnebago’s option to require delivery to its Forest City, IA facility).
- Between Feb–Sept 2016 the Platts returned the RV to Camping World (an authorized dealer) seven times for 44 separate defects; some problems persisted after dealer repairs.
- The Platts scheduled a September 26, 2016 appointment with Winnebago in Forest City for factory repairs but cancelled it and never delivered the RV to Winnebago’s facility.
- The Platts sued Winnebago for breach of express and implied warranties (Magnuson‑Moss and Colorado law) and violations of the Colorado Consumer Protection Act (CCPA).
- The district court granted Winnebago summary judgment on all claims; the Tenth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Platts) | Defendant's Argument (Winnebago) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Platts afforded Winnebago the contractually required opportunity to repair | Taking the RV to authorized dealer (Camping World) satisfied the warranty cure requirement | Warranty requires the two-step process and an opportunity for Winnebago itself to repair; cancelling the Forest City appointment denied that opportunity | Platts failed to complete step two; cancelling the appointment denied Winnebago an opportunity to repair, so cure requirement not met |
| Breach of express warranty / waiver / failure of essential purpose | Winnebago breached by failing to repair after repeated attempts; Winnebago waived right to insist on factory repairs by delayed response; warranty failed of essential purpose | No breach because Winnebago never had the required opportunity to repair; waiver argument raised first on appeal and is forfeited | No breach; appellate waiver bars consideration of the waiver argument; failure‑of‑essential‑purpose claim fails because Winnebago lacked the required opportunity to cure |
| Implied warranty (merchantability) and limits on remedies | RV was not fit for ordinary use; implied‑warranty remedies not limited by the written warranty | Limited warranty conditions remedies and requires the two‑step cure before asserting breach; Platts failed to follow it | Summary judgment for Winnebago affirmed on implied‑warranty claim; many arguments were waived or forfeited on appeal |
| CCPA deceptive trade practice claims | Brochure misrepresented RV quality and omitted material warranty limitations; Winnebago knew it could not honor warranties | Brochure statements are puffery and it expressly directed consumers to the dealer for full warranty details; no evidence Winnebago intended to induce purchase by omission | CCPA claims fail: brochure puffery not actionable, no evidence of material nondisclosure intended to induce purchase, and Winnebago attempted to honor the warranty (Platts cancelled factory repairs) |
Key Cases Cited
- Clemens v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 534 F.3d 1017 (9th Cir. 2008) (Magnuson‑Moss warranty claims stand or fall with underlying state law warranty claims)
- Schimmer v. Jaguar Cars, Inc., 384 F.3d 402 (7th Cir. 2004) (state law determines remedies for limited warranty claims under Magnuson‑Moss)
- Cooley v. Big Horn Harvestore Sys., Inc., 813 P.2d 736 (Colo. 1991) (two‑step test for when a limited remedy fails of its essential purpose)
- Curragh Queensland Mining Ltd. v. Dresser Indus., Inc., 55 P.3d 235 (Colo. App. 2002) (repair remedy fails of essential purpose where seller had an opportunity to cure but could not)
- Davis v. M.L.G. Corp., 712 P.2d 985 (Colo. 1986) (factors for determining contractual unconscionability)
- Alpine Bank v. Hubbell, 555 F.3d 1097 (10th Cir. 2009) (commercial puffery is not actionable under the CCPA)