Risner v. Regal Marine Industries, Inc., 8 F. Supp. 3d 959

Background

Risner (Ohio) bought a 2010 Regal 3760 from Land N Sea (LNS), an authorized Regal dealer, after a settlement resolving disputes over a prior 2008 boat purchase. Regal manufactured and delivered the 2010 boat to LNS; plaintiff paid LNS (not Regal).
LNS had a forbearance agreement with its floor-plan lender (GE) and later experienced serious financial trouble; Regal knew of the forbearance but was not a party to LNS’s settlement with Risner.
After delivery Risner reported several issues (EVC joystick, incorrect upholstery color, A/C/generator, fuel gauge, instrument lights, freshwater pump, delays in MSO/title). Regal arranged dealer service (Hilltop Marine) and vendor (Volvo) repairs and offered remedies; some problems were repaired promptly, others required dealer scheduling which Risner did not always pursue.
Regal’s Limited Warranty promised repair/replace of defects for one year, excluded certain items (accessories, consequential damages) and contained a nonconspicuous disclaimer of implied warranties.
Risner sued Regal under Ohio law for breach of express and implied warranties, violations of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act (CSPA), negligent misrepresentation, and intentional misrepresentation. After a bench trial, the court found for Regal on all claims.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Breach of express warranty (contract)	Regal’s statements and warranty promises created express warranties; Regal failed to timely repair covered defects.	Regal honored its Limited Warranty: authorized dealer repairs and Volvo fixed EVC; plaintiff refused to use dealer service for some items.	Denied. Regal did not breach the Limited Warranty; repairs were made or reasonably offered and plaintiff denied Regal reasonable cure opportunities.
Breach of express warranty (advertising/tort)	Regal’s website/menu and Rudholm’s statements induced purchase and formed express warranties.	Statements were puffery or true; brochures not contractual promises.	Denied. Sales claims were puffery/opinion and did not create express warranties; no evidence of factual inaccuracy.
Breach of implied warranty (merchantability)	Boat was unmerchantable because of defects and failures; Regal liable as manufacturer.	Plaintiff lacked privity with Regal; warranty disclaimed; issues were minor and curable via dealer.	Denied. Privity lacking (sale was through dealer); plaintiff failed to prove the boat was unfit for ordinary use even assuming tort-based implied warranty.
Ohio CSPA violation	Regal engaged in deceptive/unfair practices by steering plaintiff to LNS despite its financial problems, mishandling MSO/title, and failing to make plaintiff whole.	Regal’s statements were not deceptive (puffery), it assisted with repairs and MSO, and did not mislead materially.	Denied. Plaintiff did not prove a material, deceptive act connected to the 2010 purchase; Regal’s actions were not unfair or deceptive under the CSPA.
Negligent and intentional misrepresentation	Regal misrepresented LNS’s reputation and made false promises about support and the boat’s conformity.	Statements were opinions/puffery or truthful; plaintiff was sophisticated, knew risks, and relied on counsel; no justifiable reliance.	Denied. Plaintiff failed to show false, material statements, reasonable reliance, or resulting pecuniary loss.

Key Cases Cited

Voytovich v. Bangor Punta Operations, Inc., 494 F.2d 1208 (6th Cir. 1974) (manufacturer may be sued for express warranty by purchaser who relied on it)
Rogers v. Toni Home Permanent Co., 147 N.E.2d 612 (Ohio 1958) (express warranty principles and reliance)
Curl v. Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 871 N.E.2d 1141 (Ohio 2007) (privity required for contract-based implied warranty claims)
Burr v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs, 491 N.E.2d 1101 (Ohio 1986) (elements of fraud/intentional misrepresentation)
Einhorn v. Ford Motor Co., 548 N.E.2d 933 (Ohio 1990) (CSPA is remedial and to be liberally construed)