Smith v. Nexus RVs, LLC, 468 F.Supp.3d 1012

Background

Linda and Ken Smith bought a 2018 Nexus Phantom RV on April 17, 2017; Nexus provided a one‑year limited written warranty covering defects in "materials and/or workmanship" and disclaiming other express and implied warranties.
Before purchase the Smiths were told by Nexus representatives (and a weight sticker) the RV weighed about 17,950 lbs and had ~1,450–1,550 lbs cargo capacity; soon after delivery they and an expert obtained weighings showing the RV was substantially heavier and exceeded axle ratings.
The Smiths discovered and experienced various defects (water leak, propane leaks, inoperable refrigerator, slide‑out seals, etc.); many repairs were performed by Nexus or an authorized shop, some were repaired without Nexus notice.
The Smiths sued Nexus (and financing assignee Ally) asserting breach of express and implied warranties, breach of contract, Magnuson‑Moss Warranty Act (MMWA) claim, Indiana Deceptive Consumer Sales Act (IDCSA) claim, and revocation of acceptance; Nexus moved for summary judgment.
The court held (1) express warranty and breach‑of‑contract claims fail because the written warranty disclaimed other express warranties and did not cover the alleged weight/design defect; (2) revocation of acceptance fails for untimely/unequivocal notice; (3) the limitation on incidental/consequential damages is enforceable; and (4) genuine issues remain for trial on implied warranty of merchantability, IDCSA claims, and related MMWA claim.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether pre‑sale statements/weight sticker created an express warranty separate from the written warranty	Smith: Nexus promised specific weight/carrying capacity; that was an express warranty	Nexus: Written limited warranty expressly disclaims other express warranties; pre‑sale statements are excluded	Held: Written warranty disclaimed other express warranties; only the written warranty governs and it does not cover the weight/design issue → SJ for Nexus on express warranty and contract claims
Whether the RV’s overweight condition is a defect in "materials or workmanship" under the written warranty	Smith: Overweight/unsafe condition is a construction defect covered by the warranty	Nexus: Overweight is a design/chassis issue (design defect) not covered; chassis excluded by warranty	Held: Evidence shows overweight stems from chassis/design, not materials/workmanship; warranty excludes chassis → no triable issue for express warranty on weight
Whether an implied warranty of merchantability exists and was breached by the RV’s weight/condition	Smith: RV was unmerchantable (unsafe/unsuitable) at sale due to overweight and related dangers	Nexus: Sought to limit implied warranty duration and argued no breach; did not disclaim implied warranty under federal law	Held: Triable issue exists whether the RV was merchantable at sale given weight/ safety evidence → implied warranty claim survives; MMWA claim survives to the extent it tracks state law
Whether Smiths timely and unequivocally revoked acceptance under UCC § 2‑608	Smith: Oral request to cancel after delivery, a September 11 demand letter, and the complaint suffice as revocation	Nexus: No unequivocal, timely written revocation; later complaint is not sufficient notice	Held: Revocation requires clear, timely notice; Smiths’ oral request and letter were equivocal and complaint is untimely → SJ for Nexus on revocation claim

Key Cases Cited

Celina Ins. Co. v. Indianapolis Roofing & Sheet Metal Corp., 953 N.E.2d 679 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (elements required to prove an express warranty claim)
Bruce Martin Constr. v. CTB, Inc., 735 F.3d 750 (8th Cir. 2013) (distinguishing design defects from material/workmanship defects for warranty coverage)
Lombard Corp. v. Quality Aluminum Prods. Co., 261 F.2d 336 (6th Cir. 1958) (materials defects vs. design defects distinction)
Brewer v. PACCAR, Inc., 124 N.E.3d 616 (Ind. 2019) (Indiana product liability recognizes design and manufacturing defect categories)
Campbell Hausfeld/Scott Fetzer Co. v. Johnson, 109 N.E.3d 953 (Ind. 2018) (design‑defect framework under Indiana law)
Mathews v. REV Recreation Group, Inc., 931 F.3d 619 (7th Cir. 2019) (courts’ treatment of reasonable number of repair attempts and warranty remedies)
Priebe v. Autobarn, Ltd., 240 F.3d 584 (7th Cir. 2001) (MMWA does not create independent substantive claims; it federalizes state warranty claims)
De Voe Chevrolet‑Cadillac, Inc. v. Cartwright, 526 N.E.2d 1237 (Ind. Ct. App. 1988) (requirements for revocation of acceptance notice under the UCC)
Cimino v. Fleetwood Enter., 542 F. Supp. 2d 869 (N.D. Ind. 2008) (when warranty fails of its essential purpose and consequences for remedies)
General Motors Corp. v. Sheets, 818 N.E.2d 49 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (application of Lemon Law standards on reasonable number of repair attempts)