2019 Ohio 3034
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Powell bought a new 2016 Airstream RV from a dealer (Airstream Adventures, "AA"); Airstream manufactured and sold the RV to AA in Ohio.
- After purchase the RV experienced numerous service visits for wiring, seals, rivets, fans, drawers, toilet, furnace, and other complaints; AA (an authorized dealer) performed most repairs.
- Powell sued Airstream in Ohio state court alleging breach of express and implied warranties, Magnuson‑Moss Act violation, and Washington Consumer Protection Act (WCPA) claims.
- Airstream moved for summary judgment, arguing lack of privity for implied‑warranty claims, compliance with its limited warranty Repair Remedy and failure by Powell to exhaust the Back‑Up Remedy, and no public‑impact or underlying statutory violation for the WCPA claim.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for Airstream; on appeal the court applied Washington law and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied warranty / privity | Powell contends implied warranty of merchantability applies despite buying from dealer. | Airstream argues Powell is a "vertical" non‑privity purchaser and lacks privity; no third‑party‑beneficiary showing. | Held: No privity and no evidence Airstream specifically intended Powell as a third‑party beneficiary; implied‑warranty claim fails. |
| Express warranty / exhaustion of remedies | Powell says Airstream failed to cure defects after repeated repairs. | Airstream says it complied with Repair Remedy; Powell failed to exhaust the contractually required Back‑Up Remedy (independent shop or diminution) and sought rescission instead. | Held: Many complaints were outside warranty exclusions or were repaired; Powell did not follow Back‑Up Remedy; warranty terms were not frustrated — express‑warranty claim fails. |
| Magnuson‑Moss Warranty Act | Powell invokes Magnuson‑Moss based on state warranty breaches. | Airstream notes federal claim depends on state warranty viability. | Held: Because state warranty claims fail, Magnuson‑Moss claim also fails. |
| Washington Consumer Protection Act (CPA) | Powell alleges deceptive acts and misrepresentations about quality. | Airstream argues there is no underlying statutory violation and no evidence of public impact or a pattern affecting consumers. | Held: No evidence of public impact or pattern; isolated dispute and no deceptive warranty breach shown — CPA claim fails. |
Key Cases Cited
- Tex Enterprises, Inc. v. Brockway Standard, Inc., 149 Wash.2d 204, 66 P.3d 625 (Wash. 2003) (distinguishes horizontal and vertical non‑privity; vertical purchasers generally need privity or third‑party‑beneficiary status)
- Touchet Valley Grain Growers, Inc. v. Opp & Seibold Gen. Constr., Inc., 119 Wash.2d 334, 831 P.2d 724 (Wash. 1992) (third‑party‑beneficiary test for implied warranties where manufacturer knew purchaser identity/purpose)
- Kadiak Fisheries Co. v. Murphy Diesel Co., 70 Wn.2d 153, 422 P.2d 496 (Wash. 1966) (manufacturer liability to remote purchaser where goods were specially built and manufacturer knew purchaser)
- American Nursery Products, Inc. v. Indian Wells Orchards, 115 Wash.2d 217, 797 P.2d 477 (Wash. 1990) (limited remedies do not fail of essential purpose merely because repair attempts were unsuccessful)
- Curl v. Volkswagen of Am. Inc., 114 Ohio St.3d 266, 871 N.E.2d 1141 (Ohio 2007) (Magnuson‑Moss does not create state law warranties; federal claim rises or falls with state warranty claims)
- Clemens v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 534 F.3d 1017 (9th Cir. 2008) (Magnuson‑Moss claims depend on underlying state warranty claims)