RSO Corporation v. Navistar Inc.
2:23-cv-01669
| D. Nev. | Jul 21, 2025Background
- RSO Corporation purchased a Navistar-manufactured commercial truck in 2021 for its portable restroom rental operations.
- The Navistar truck experienced persistent mechanical failures and was out of service for approximately 250 days across several periods while under warranty repair.
- All repairs were ultimately completed by February 2024 at no cost to RSO, and the truck is currently fully operational.
- The express warranty only promised repair or replacement of defective parts, did not specify a time for completion, and disclaimed incidental/consequential damages.
- RSO brought suit for breach of warranty, arguing the lengthy repair period deprived it of the benefit of its bargain and triggered remedies otherwise disclaimed.
- Upon removal to federal court and dismissal of other claims, only the breach of warranty claim remained; Navistar moved for summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether delay in repairs breached express warranty | Repairs not done in a reasonable time was a breach | Warranty lacked a reasonable-time requirement | No breach—warranty's plain language controlled, no time limit exists |
| Application of essential-purpose doctrine | Remedy failed essential purpose, so full UCC remedies apply | Doctrine does not establish a breach where repair was done | Doctrine is a remedial, not breach, principle; does not apply |
| Reasonable-time requirement implied by law | Law implies a reasonable time for repair | Only written warranty terms control absent statutory basis | No implied reasonable-time absent language or statute |
| Exclusion of plaintiff's damages expert | Not germane to liability, relevant if case survives | Moot if no breach decided | Denied as moot due to summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Newmar Corp. v. McCrary, 309 P.3d 1021 (Nev. 2013) (essential-purpose doctrine only applies if repair-or-replacement remedy fails completely and the buyer is left without a viable remedy)
- Ehlers v. Chrysler Motor Corp., 226 N.W.2d 157 (S.D. 1975) (remedy fails essential purpose if seller refuses to repair altogether)
- Koperski v. Husker Dodge, Inc., 302 N.W.2d 655 (Neb. 1981) (repair remedy does not fail essential purpose where repairs are ultimately made)