Gilbert v. Monaco Coach Corp.

352 F. Supp. 2d 1323 (N.D. Ga. 2004)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Ps purchased a 2001 Safari Serengeti Recreational Vehicle (RV) on June 3, 2002, from La Mesa RV Center. D was the manufacturer of the RV. Ps took possession of the RV on June 6, 2002. Ps knew that they could either accept or reject the RV and chose to accept it, knowing that the vehicle had problems with the electrical system, DVD, VCR, satellite system, and the color of some doors. Ps maintain that they accepted the RV, knowing of these problems, but with the understanding that the dealer would repair the problems. Ps had received a limited warranty that warranted the portions of the vehicle which D manufactures and D's workmanship shall be free from defect for the period beginning on the date of purchase and continuing for one (1) year from the date of purchase or twelve thousand (12,000) miles, whichever occurs first. The Limited Warranty expressly excluded items not manufactured or supplied by D, as well as any loss, injury, or damage to person or property resulting from any defect in the vehicle, [and]...direct, indirect, incidental, special or consequential damages of any nature. The Limited Warranty limits Ps' remedy as to a warranted part to repair or replacement of the defective part. Ps have alleged problems with the waste system, exterior body, interior trim, electrical system, doors, and brakes. Ps have taken their RV to D's authorized dealers for repair at least seven times. Ps were told that to fix the odor problem the walls of the RV had to be taken down in order to correct the sewage odor problem. Ps paid for the repair work and were instructed to seek reimbursement from D. Ps have not been reimbursed. An expert determined that the gray, rather than black, water tank was the cause of the odor in the coach; determined that the lights failed to properly function off both the inverter and the vehicle itself. The expert failed to determine the source of the wandering steering problem; he could not determine the source of the problems with the satellite television; was unable to determine the source of leaks, although he identified the air conditioner and compressor as likely causes. He thought the cause of the headlights problem could be a combination of heat and water. He could not determine the cause of the problems with the cameras, as he is not qualified to do so. He was unable to determine why the hyrdo hot did not function properly. The dash vibration, which D claims Ps never complained of to the repairmen, thought the cause could be an imbalance of the tires. D maintains that all these problems would be relatively inexpensive to repair, making revocation of acceptance an inappropriate remedy. D maintains that it is not responsible for the repair of the problems as there is insufficient evidence to show that the problems alleged are covered by the Limited Warranty. Ps sought to revoke their acceptance of the vehicle. D moved for summary judgment.