Prousi v. Cruisers Division Of Kcs International, Inc.

975 F.Supp. 768 (1997)

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

P purchased a yacht from Greenwich Boat Works in New Jersey, an authorized dealer of D boats. The boat was manufactured by D in all respects other than that of the engine, which was manufactured and warranted separately by defendant Crusader. The vessel was launched in Greenwich in May 1995. P hired Tim Silvio to pilot the boat to Delaware and eventually to Maryland. The vessel stalled several times in the course of its journey and he reported this to Greenwich Boat Works. In July 1995, P notified Kenneth Hayes, an agent of D, of several minor problems he was having with his boat. P had these problems repaired by local mechanics. After P notified D of these problems, D sent parts at no charge and notified Greenwich Boat Works that D would reimburse P for his other expenses if Greenwich Boat Works, whom D believed was responsible, did not. In October, P contracted with Annapolis Motor Yachts (AMY) to move the boat to Annapolis. AMY found that the starboard engine was not functioning properly and a local mechanic, Tom Vogel, inspected the engine and found that the valves in the starboard engine were rusted and sticking as a result of water having intruded into the engine. Vogel opined that the water probably came in through the exhaust system, which was installed by and presumably warranted by D. On October 13, 1995, P notified D of the problem with the engine. D responded that the engine was warranted by Crusader. P sent a letter to Crusader with a request for warranty work. Crusader authorized Vogel to continue his inspection of the engine. On October 26, 1995, P directed Vogel to cease work on the engine. On October 18, 1995, P filed this lawsuit alleging three counts of warranty violations. The gist of P's complaint is that a defect in either the installation of or peripheral attachments to the engine (warranted by D) caused water to intrude into the engine, eventually making it inoperable. P complains that D refused to honor its warranty by seeing that the damage was repaired or the engine replaced. D moved for summary judgment. D argues that P did not deliver the vessel to an authorized dealer as required by the warranty and did not permit warranty work to be effected on the engine.