Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals Commentary : In Their Opinion : Lawyer & Attorney Michael E. Rigney : Kelley Drye & Warren Law Firm

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

ANDERSON v. GULF STREAM COACH (November 3, 2011)

Jeff and Liz Anderson had a 2008 Crescendo RV manufactured by Gulf Stream. They liked the vehicle but wanted to upgrade to a more powerful version for their tour of the Western United States. They contacted Mike Apple at Royal Gorge, a Gulf Stream dealer. He suggested a 2009 Tourmaster. The Anderson's, with Apple, examined the vehicle and consulted Gulf Stream's website. The website indicated that the vehicle came with a standard 425-hp engine. In fact, the vehicle at issue had only a 360-hp engine. Assuming the RV had the larger engine, the Anderson's purchased it "as is" and accepted delivery in September 2008. After only a few uses, they discovered numerous significant problems. They returned the RV to Royal Gorge. During the repair process, Apple discovered the presence of the smaller engine, although the original paperwork had correctly identified the engine’s horsepower. The Anderson's went back and forth with Apple and Gulf Stream. Finally, in April 2009, the Anderson's brought suit for breach of express warranty, breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act violations, Indiana’s Deceptive Consumer Sales Act violations, and fraud. Magistrate Judge Nuechterlein (N.D. Ind.) granted summary judgment to the defendants on all counts. The Anderson's appeal.

In their opinion, Circuit Judges Bauer, Flaum, and Williams affirmed in part and reversed in part. The Court first addressed the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act claim, which was based on the state law warranty claims. The statute provides a federal cause of action for failure to comply with a warranty. The statute requires, however, notice and a reasonable opportunity to cure. Although the district court concluded that the Anderson's did not give a reasonable opportunity to cure, the Court disagreed, when the record was viewed in the light most favorable to the Anderson's. Thus, summary judgment on the state law expressed warranty claim and related MMWA claim was improper. The Court reached the same conclusion with respect to the Anderson's state law implied warranty claim and its related MMWA claim. Again, the district court relied on its conclusion that the Anderson's failed to provide an opportunity to cure, with which the Court disagreed. The Court turned to the Indiana Deceptive Consumer Sales Act claim. That claim was based on the fact that the Tourmaster was designated a 2009 model but was manufactured to fulfill an order for 2008 model. The FTC is responsible for enforcing model year designation requirements. Under those requirements, although an RV manufacturer may use an older chassis on a newer model, or even the same chassis on different model years, it cannot do as it did here – use a 2007 chassis on a vehicle that is completed during the 2008 model year and call it a 2009. The district court erred in concluding that it could. But the Court also concluded that there were issues of material fact with respect to this claim because the Anderson's allegedly received documents with the RV that accurately identified the 360-hp engine. Summary judgment is therefore not appropriate for either party. Finally, the Court concluded that there was no evidence in the record of intent to deceive and affirmed summary judgment on the fraud claim.