790 F.Supp.3d 712
N.D. Ind.2025Background
- Plaintiffs Eric Polansky and his business, Paradise Motors, bought a 2021 Forest River Berkshire XLT RV that began experiencing transmission and engine calibration problems shortly after purchase.
- The RV was acquired through Specialty Auto Sales (dealer), with a title change to Paradise Motors soon after initial paperwork by Polansky.
- Multiple repair attempts were made at a Cummins-authorized service center, with issues persisting after various software updates to the engine and transmission control modules.
- Plaintiffs sued Forest River (manufacturer), FCCC (chassis maker), and Cummins (engine maker) in Ohio; case was later transferred to Indiana. Plaintiffs conceded to summary judgment for Forest River, leaving claims against FCCC and Cummins.
- At summary judgment, FCCC moved to dismiss all claims; Cummins also sought summary judgment on all claims, but the outcome varied by claim type.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied warranty against FCCC | Implied warranty exists via agency/third-party beneficiary theories. | No privity; no direct or contemplated relationship with Paradise. | No agency or direct benefit; summary judgment for FCCC. |
| Ohio Lemon Law claim against FCCC | FCCC warrantied RV, so law applies. | Warranty did not cover the defective engine/transmission. | No coverage for defective parts; summary judgment for FCCC. |
| Express warranty claim against Cummins | Engine defect caused loss of power, unrepaired after multiple tries. | No warrantable defect; insufficient repair attempts/opportunities. | Issues of material fact remain; claim survives summary judgment. |
| Implied warranty claim against Cummins | Implied warranty via agency/third-party beneficiary theory. | No privity—Cummins too remote as a manufacturer; disclaimer applies. | No privity; claim dismissed. |
| MMWA claim against Cummins | MMWA as basis for express warranty relief. | Dependent on state warranty claims’ viability. | Survives only as MMWA vehicle for express warranty; dismissed for others. |
| OCSPA and ODTPA claims vs. both defendants | Warranty breaches and handling were deceptive/unconscionable. | No misrepresentation or deceptive acts; mere breach insufficient. | No deception/unconscionable acts; claims dismissed. |
| Consequential damages & rescission (Cummins) | Remedy failed essential purpose, so broader damages/revocation allowed. | Warranty limits damages; no privity for rescission/revocation. | Consequential damages—jury question; rescission/revocation denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Curl v. Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 871 N.E.2d 1141 (Ohio 2007) (establishes privity requirement for implied warranty under Ohio law)
- Bobb Forest Prods., Inc. v. Morbark Indus., Inc., 783 N.E.2d 560 (Ohio Ct. App. 2002) (sets narrow third-party beneficiary exception for privity)
- Chemtrol Adhesives v. Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins., 537 N.E.2d 624 (Ohio 1989) (exclusion of consequential damages generally valid unless unconscionable)
- Temple v. Fleetwood Enters., 133 F. Appx. 254 (6th Cir. 2005) (proof needed for express warranty claim: defect, opportunity to cure, failure to cure)
- Royster v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., 750 N.E.2d 531 (Ohio 2001) (describes elements of Ohio Lemon Law)