A win for Owners

[Bostongone]

A recent decision by an Oregon judge in favor of a RV motorhome owner may make it harder for manufacturers to pass the buck!
https://www.rvtravel.com/defectiverv935/

[Janet H]

Interesting - thanks for posting the link :)

[Laredo Tugger]

Good info.Thanks.
If my washer,television or car breaks under warranty,the parts to repair them are covered. No other industry gets to play the "blame game" on the parts they use, why should the RV industry be exempt?
RMc

[LHaven]

Not that helpful for trailer owners, as most states have lemon laws that apply to motorized units (motorhomes) only, so nothing in this decision applies.

[Laredo Tugger]

Not that helpful for trailer owners, as most states have lemon laws that apply to motorized units (motorhomes) only, so nothing in this decision applies.

And you don't think I can't find a lawyer to file a discriminatory statute?
Motorhomes get "protection" but not trailers? The only difference is a motor?
Just a matter of time before this comes around to trailers. One type of RV is not any more exempt than another.
RMc

[LHaven]

Well, good luck. I'll sure root for you. But it hasn't happened anywhere that I know of. The one state that specifically includes towables has done it from day one, and the few others that are believed to include them include them only by a sort of omission.

https://rvnerds.com/resources/towable-rv-lemon-laws-by-state/

Even some of the states that include motorhomes cover only the chassis, power plant, and power train; so if you've had your slideout repaired five times and it still doesn't work, you're out of luck.

If all else fails you can try filing a claim in federal court under Magnuson-Moss, but it will be nowhere near as cut and dry as a state lemon law.

[Laredo Tugger]

“From a practical standpoint, this decision protects a consumer from having to litigate against each subcomponent manufacturer, while also ensuring that final manufacturers cannot contract around Oregon’s Lemon Law,” said Judge McShane of the United States District Court for the District of Oregon.

By not allowing this particular manufacture to "scatter"responsibility for "subcomponents" is a positive step for all types of RVs. On new purchases the warranty is the initial protection,after that you will probably have to follow the path that this owner did in Oregon. Truly amazing to me is the fact that the unit described in this ruling was almost 4 years old.
RMc

[JRTJH]

“From a practical standpoint, this decision protects a consumer from having to litigate against each subcomponent manufacturer, while also ensuring that final manufacturers cannot contract around Oregon’s Lemon Law,” said Judge McShane of the United States District Court for the District of Oregon.

By not allowing this particular manufacture to "scatter"responsibility for "subcomponents" is a positive step for all types of RVs. On new purchases the warranty is the initial protection,after that you will probably have to follow the path that this owner did in Oregon. Truly amazing to me is the fact that the unit described in this ruling was almost 4 years old.
RMc

RMc,

Take another look at the article posted by the OP. The unit was a 2016 model and this is located a couple paragraphs below the introduction:

"The vehicle was presented to dealerships for repairs under various warranties approximately nine times between 2015 and 2017, and it was undriveable for more than 130 days."

What it says "between the lines" is that he started trying to get a replacement and "filed legal documents" 4 years ago. It took 4 years of "legal fees" to finally get a "solution" and "now the vehicle is 4 years old. He didn't "just file a complaint last week and get resolution quickly". It's been at a cost (that he may or may not recover in the resolution) that likely drained his personal finances more than the cost of the vehicle.

Don't read into this anything that's not there. Chances are that he "lost his butt" in this process and the lawyers are the only winner. Even if he gets a "new vehicle" out of the deal, it probably would have been "cheaper to trade in the old one" than to "hire a lawyer to do what he did".....

Now, ONE state has a ruling. People living in "the other 49 states will have something to base a claim on, but they'll also have to "pave the initial road" to include travel trailers/fifth wheels in each state's "lemon law".... It likely won't be "nationwide coverage" in our lifetime.

[Laredo Tugger]

John,
Unless his brother in-law was his attorney I understand your point and also see the time frames you refer to.
As I understand, Texas and Florida have RV Lemon Laws so I guess we are down to 47 that need to be sued. Order in the court!
Thanks
RMc

[Mythplaced]

There is also a similar ruling in Illinois.

IL Supreme Court: Buyers of defective RV not required to allow dealer to fix it before demanding refund
https://cookcountyrecord.com/stories/514144420-il-supreme-court-buyers-of-defective-rv-not-required-to-allow-dealer-to-fix-it-before-demanding-refund

Courts are upholding RV consumers rights on a more frequent basis.
:D

[RET.LEO]

Illinois also.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQUJsbRV8qM&t=49s

[Ken / Claudia]

I looked up the case on the web and doubled checked Oregon's Lemon Law before posting.

Words matter in law and in current Oregon law, the lemon law ONLY applies to motor vehicles. The law could be changed, but at a BIG cost and getting the whole or most state legislation backing it to pass. Likely not going to happen in my life time. Unless someone can spend 10s of thousands of their own money and figure it being a full time job for a year or more, Good luck.
This case was in Federal court, not any Oregon state court, for those who did not know. But only affects Oregon law. Although future fed cases of this type will try and might use this ruling, that's how the system works.
I wonder if and why the Def Roblin did not go after Frightliner as it was all about the engine not the RV parts. The engine cooling system was not working correctly.
I look forward to read about what the court believes Roblin is owed. The lawyer costs if he did pay the firm will be about 50% of the the settlement. At lawyers hourly rates, 300 an hour to do anything is a low figure. It will be much more then the RV was worth. After all they have clerks, investigators and an office to pay for besides themselves.