Quantcast
Channel: warranty – South Carolina Lawyers Weekly
Viewing all articles
Browse latest Browse all 7

Tort/Negligence – Product Liability – Contract – Warranty Disclaimer – Component Manufacturer – Camper – Economic Loss Rule – Civil Practice – Federal Question Jurisdiction 

0
0

Godawa v. Dixie Camper Sales of S.C., Inc. (Lawyers Weekly No. 002-105-16, 10 pp.) (Henry Herlong Jr., S.J.) 6:16-cv-01101; D.S.C.

Holding: In its express warranty with the manufacturer of a travel trailer, the defendant-component manufacturer properly disclaimed any implied warranties to third-party beneficiaries, such as ultimate retail purchasers of the travel trailer. Therefore, even though the plaintiff-purchasers allege that defendant’s component – the slide mechanism responsible for expanding the travel trailer for additional living quarters – is defective, defendant is entitled to dismissal of plaintiffs’ implied warranty claims against it.

The court denies plaintiffs’ motion to remand to state court and grants defendant’s motion to dismiss.

Although the complaint lists only one specific damages amount – $44,759, which is the total purchase price of the allegedly defective travel trailer – plaintiffs also alleged damages for the lost use of their travel trailer for a three-year period as well as out-of-pocket expenses including (1) four repair attempts, (2) mileage going to and from the dealership for repairs, and (3) expenses incurred while stranded at a campground, including hiring a repair team. Plaintiffs’ claim exceeds the $50,000 threshold for removing a Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act to federal court.

Since defendant has sufficiently disclaimed any and all implied warranties to plaintiffs as third-party beneficiaries, plaintiffs’ MMWA implied warranty claim fails. Where the express warranty from defendant to travel-trailer manufacturer EverGreen Recreational Vehicles, LLC, was not a part of the basis of the bargain between plaintiffs and EverGreen, this warranty is not subject to the MMWA.

Finally, the economic loss doctrine bars plaintiffs’ negligence claim against defendant. Under the economic loss doctrine, there is no tort liability for a product defect if the damage suffered by the plaintiff is only to the product itself.

In this case, the damage that occurred to the travel trailer itself clearly constitutes an economic loss, for which recovery is barred. Further, the other consequential damages claims, including expenses related to repairing the travel trailer and lost camping deposits, also constitute economic losses barred by the doctrine.

Dismissed.


Viewing all articles
Browse latest Browse all 7

Latest Images

Trending Articles





Latest Images