United States District Court, D. New Mexico
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
STEPHAN M. VIDMAR UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
MATTER is before the Court on Defendant's Motion and
Memorandum for Summary Judgment, filed September 25, 2017.
[Doc. 26]. Plaintiffs responded on October 16, 2017. [Doc.
29]. Defendant did not file a reply, and the time for doing
so has passed. Having considered the record, briefing, and
relevant law, and being otherwise fully advised in the
premises, the Court finds that Defendant's motion is
well-taken and will be GRANTED.
purchased a new 2012 Forest River Georgetown Motorhome on or
around April 22, 2013, from McMahon's RV, a recreational
vehicle dealership in Mesa, Arizona. [Doc. 26] at 4.
Defendant Forest River was the end-stage manufacturer of the
motorhome. Id. It manufactured some, but not all, of
the component parts and integrated them into a final product.
Id. Defendant does not sell recreational vehicles
directly to the public. Id. The motorhome came with
a written one-year limited warranty. Id. The
warranty provides, in pertinent part, the following:
“([W]arrantor) warrants to the ORIGINAL CONSUMER
PURCHASER ONLY, when purchased from an authorized Forest
River, Inc. dealer, for a period of (1) one year from date of
purchase (Warranty Period), that the body structure of this
recreational vehicle shall be free of substantial defects in
materials and workmanship attributable to Warrantor. . . .
WARRANTOR EXPRESSLY LIMITS THE DURATION OF ALL EXPRESS AND
IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND ALL IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE EXCEPT IN
THOSE STATES THAT DO NOT ALLOW THIS EXCLUSION. WARRANTOR
EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY
OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AFTER EXPIRATION OF THE
WARRANTY PERIOD. No action to enforce express or implied
warranties shall be commenced later than (90) ninety days
after expiration of the warranty period. . . .
No action to enforce express or implied warranties shall be
commenced without prior written notice to the manufacture[r]
and/or warrantor at the address listed above of the alleged
defect or nonconformity or the authorized repair
facility's failed repair attempt and MANUFACTURE[R], AT
ITS DIRECT OPTION, shall have a final opportunity to remedy.
. . .
Warrantor will remedy substantial defects in materials and
workmanship caused by Warrantor. Warrantor shall elect to
remedy the defect from among the following: repair,
replacement or refund. . . .
[Doc. 27] at 6 (emphases in original).
allege that upon delivery the motorhome was defective. [Doc.
29] at 2. Among other things, they allege defective
conditions relating to the generator, electrical wiring,
windows, walls, and trim. Id. Upon noticing the
defects, Plaintiffs sought to have the motorhome repaired.
Plaintiffs state that they attempted to contact the
dealership from which they had purchased the motorhome, but
it had gone out of business. Id. On February 20,
2014, before the expiration of the limited warranty,
Plaintiffs took the motorhome to Camping World, a
recreational vehicle dealership in Anthony, Texas, to be
repaired. [Doc. 26] at 4-5. Plaintiffs allege that Camping
World is an “authorized Forest River repair
facility.” [Doc. 29] at 2.
allege that, before dropping off the motorhome for repair,
they had been in communication with Defendant's warranty
manager. Id. On February 12, 2014, they emailed a
list of 65 items in need of repair to the warranty manager.
Id. Plaintiffs allege that during the time their
motorhome was at Camping World, they were in regular
communication with employees of both Camping World and
Defendant. Id. Plaintiffs allege that they were
“continually told by Camping World that they were
waiting on [Defendant] for either replacement parts for the
Motorhome or for authorization to repair certain
items.” Id. Defendant disputes this assertion.
Defendant contends that it only became aware on November 3,
2014, that Plaintiffs had taken the motorhome to Camping
World for repairs. [Doc. 27] at 3.
motorhome remained at the dealership for more than a year.
See [Doc. 26] at 6. Plaintiffs picked it up on
October 10, 2015. Id. The warranty had long since
expired. Plaintiffs allege that, despite the prolonged repair
time, not all the defects were repaired. [Doc. 29] at 2-3. In
November 2015, Plaintiffs emailed Defendant's new
warranty manager to report that the motorhome had not been
fully repaired within the warranty period. Id.
Plaintiffs also contacted Camping World to report that not
all the defects had been fixed. Id. at 3. Plaintiffs
allege that they were told by Camping World in July 2016 that
no further repairs on the motorhome could be completed
because Defendant had not reimbursed them for repairs they
had already made. Id. Defendant maintains that
Plaintiffs “never asked Forest River to repair any
Forest River warrantable items that they claim [were] not
properly repaired by a third-party service or repair
facility.” [Doc. 26] at 6. And Plaintiffs never
“sent written notice of any warrantable items that have
not been properly repaired or replaced by a repair facility
during the limited one year warranty period.”
Id. at 7. Defendant has never repaired the
motorhome. Id. at 6. Plaintiffs currently have
possession of the motorhome. Id.
filed the instant lawsuit on November 11, 2016. [Doc. 1].
They allege violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15
U.S.C. § 2301; breach of express and implied warranties;
breach of contract; and negligent repair. Id. at 5-9.
Plaintiffs seek damages for diminution in value of the
motorhome as a result of the defects that were present at the
time of purchase; damages for loss of use of the motorhome;
out-of-pocket damages for expenditures on repairs and towing;
attorney's fees; costs; and interest. Id. at 10.
has moved for summary judgment on all of Plaintiffs'
claims. [Doc. 26]. First, Defendant asserts that
Plaintiffs' warranty claims are untimely. Defendant
contends that, under Arizona law, parties may contract to
shorten the applicable statute of limitations. Id.
at 7- 8 (citing Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 47-2725). Defendant
argues that the limited warranty agreement reduced the
limitation period to 90 days from the expiration of the
warranty. Id. at 8. Plaintiffs filed the lawsuit
more than two years after the expiration of the limitation
period provided in the warranty agreement. Defendant further
contends that Plaintiffs' claim for breach of implied
warranty must fail because there was no privity of contract
between the parties. Id. at 9-10. As to
Plaintiffs' claims for violation of the express terms of
the warranty, Defendant argues that Plaintiffs were required
to notify Defendant in writing of any alleged defects within
the warranty period and afford Defendant the opportunity to
repair them. Id. at 10-11. By failing to do so,
Defendant contends, Plaintiffs' warranty claims fail.
Finally, Defendant argues that the economic loss doctrine
prohibits Plaintiffs from prevailing on their negligent
repair claim. Id. at 12.
the timeliness of the lawsuit, Plaintiffs contend that §
47-2725 is inapplicable because it pertains only to
“contracts for sale” and requires that the
language reducing the statute of limitations be present in
“the original agreement” between the parties.
Id. at 5. Plaintiffs claim that the warranty
satisfies neither of these requirements. In the alternative,
Plaintiffs argue that the warranty amounts to a contract of
adhesion and the limitation clause is therefore void.
Id. at 6. Plaintiffs also refute Defendant's
argument as to the privity requirement for breach of implied
warranty claims, appearing to rest on the language of the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. Id. at 7-8. Finally, as
to their claims for breach of express warranty, Plaintiffs
contend that they notified Defendant within the warranty
period of the claimed defects, submitting as evidence several
pages of emails between Plaintiffs, employees of Defendant,
and employees at Camping World. Id.; [Doc. 29-2].