Truitt v. Forest River, Inc.

• Decision Date: 07 September 2021
• Docket Number: 3:20-CV-964 JD
• Parties: RANDY TRUITT, et al., Plaintiffs, v. FOREST RIVER, INC., Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Indiana

RANDY TRUITT, et al., Plaintiffs, v. FOREST RIVER, INC., Defendant.

No. 3:20-CV-964 JD

United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, South Bend Division

September 7, 2021

OPINION AND ORDER

JON E DEGUILIO, Chief Judge United States District Court

On November 17, 2020, Plaintiffs Randy Truitt, Lance Kuykendall Carlton Whitmire, David Trupp, Kevin Herinckx, and Fred Smith filed a Complaint on behalf of themselves and a putative class of current and former owners and lessees of recreational vehicles (“RVs”) manufactured marketed, and distributed by Forest River, Inc. with defective axles and a defective suspension. (DE 1 ¶ 1.) Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a), 23(b)(2), and 23(b)(3), Plaintiffs assert claims on behalf of themselves and/or, in the alternative, to a putative Nationwide Class, a California Class, an Illinois Class, a Nevada Class, a Washington Class, and an Oregon Class. (DE 1 ¶ 112.) Forest River moved to dismiss on all counts. (DE 18.) As set forth below, the Court grants in part and denies in part Forest River's Motion to Dismiss. (DE 18.)

A. Factual Background

Forest River has at least 27 different lines of RVs, each of which has an axle manufactured by Lippert Components (“Lippert”). (DE 1 ¶¶ 74, 77.) Lippert fabricates the component parts, finishes and treats the axle shaft, and installs the axle seals, before sending the completed axle to Forest River to be used in each of their RVs. (DE 1 ¶¶ 78, 79.)

The SKF Group, which Plaintiffs describe as “a leading bearing and seal manufacturing company, ” has published industry standards for installation of seals on axles. (DE 1 ¶ 81.) According to their guide, the proper installation of the axle depends on three conditions: (1) the condition of the shaft; (2) the condition of the bore; and (3) the proper techniques for seal installation. (DE 1 ¶ 81.) To prevent gas leakage, the guide advises that a method known as “plunge grinding” should be used to assure a proper finish on the shaft. (DE 1 ¶ 83.) Additionally, the guide suggests using a heat-treated shaft finish of “between 10 to 20 micro inches” to avoid grease leakage and contamination. (DE 1 ¶ 84.)

Plaintiffs allege that Lippert deviated from these best practices. (DE 1 ¶ 85.) They contend that Lippert failed to plunge grind the axle shafts to a commercially reasonable finish and did not heat treat the shaft, resulting in a finish of only 63 microinches or less. (DE 1 ¶ 85.) This failure resulted in grease contamination of the brakes, which diminished the braking capability and increased the safety risk of Forest River RVs. (DE 1 ¶¶ 87, 88.)

The Complaint further alleges that Forest River knew of the axle defect at “all times relevant.” (DE 1 ¶ 89.) First, Plaintiffs allege that Forest River knew of the defect because of presale durability testing it conducted on the axles to make sure they were free from defects. (DE 1 ¶ 90.) According to Plaintiffs' complaint, Forest River claimed on their website that this testing was “rigorous” and that they randomly subjected units to inspection “on top of the inspections that all units undergo ....” (DE 1 ¶ 91.) Second, the Complaint alleges that there were at least ten public customer complaints providing Forest River with knowledge of the axle defect. (DE 1 ¶¶ 99-100.) Six of these publicly available complaints were filed with The Office of Defects Investigation within the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (“NHTSA”). (DE 1 ¶¶ 97, 99.) While some of the NHTSA customer complaints Plaintiffs provided explicitly reference problems with the axle (DE 1 Consumer Complaints No. 1, 2, 4, and 5), other NHTSA complaints don't mention the axle at all and only generally refer to problems with the brakes (DE 1 Consumer Complaints No. 3 and 6). The four other public customer complaints Plaintiffs provide were posted on third-party websites. (DE 1 ¶ 100.) Nowhere do Plaintiffs allege that there were an unusual number of customer complaints made about the axle. Third, Plaintiffs allege that a statement made by Lippert's Vice President of RV Sales on February 17, 2017, provided Forest River with knowledge of the axle defect. (DE 1 ¶¶ 101, 102.) Plaintiffs assert that the Vice President made the statement in response to reports of the axle defect, saying “that his company is, indeed, aware of the problem and aware of the conversation among [owners of RVs with Lippert axles].” (DE 1 ¶ 102.) Plaintiffs further allege that this statement was covered by two RV reporting websites, RV Daily News and RVHeadlines.com (DE 1 ¶ 103) and that it stemmed discussion on three RV “forum websites” (DE 1 ¶ 104).

The named Plaintiffs each allegedly purchased an RV from Forest River unaware of the axle defect prior to purchase. (DE 1 ¶¶ 1, 7.) The Complaint alleges that, had these Plaintiffs been aware of the defect, they would not have purchased the RV, or would have purchased only at a lesser price. (DE 1 ¶ 7.) Each named plaintiff had similar, although slightly different, purchasing experiences:

Plaintiff Randy Truitt is a citizen of Kansas who purchased a Forest River RV in Kansas during April 2015. (DE 1 ¶¶ 13, 14.) The complaint alleges that, when purchasing his RV, Mr. Truitt relied upon the window sticker and information attached to the floor model, which did not disclose the defect. (DE 1 ¶ 15.)

Plaintiff Lance Kuykendall is a citizen of Illinois who purchased a Forest River RV in Illinois during June 2018. (DE 1 ¶¶ 20, 21.) The Complaint alleges that Mr. Kuykendall relied upon the specifications sheet and advertising pamphlet provided by Forest River when purchasing his RV. (DE 1 ¶ 22.)

Plaintiff Carlton Whitmire is a citizen of the State of Washington who purchased a Forest River RV in Washington around February 2017. (DE 1 ¶¶ 30, 31.) The Complaint alleges that, when purchasing his RV, Mr. Whitmire relied on the design of the floor model, which did not disclose the defect. (DE 1 ¶ 32.)

Plaintiff David Trupp is a citizen of the State of Nevada who purchased his RV in Nevada during March 2017. (DE 1 ¶¶ 37, 38.) The Complaint does not allege that Mr. Trupp relied on any information when purchasing his RV.

Plaintiff Kevin Herinckx is a citizen of the State of Oregon who purchased a Forest River RV in Oregon during December 2016. (DE 1 ¶¶ 48, 49.) When deciding to purchase the RV, the Complaint alleges that Plaintiff reviewed and relied upon a window sticker, which did not disclose the defect. (DE 1 ¶ 50.)

Plaintiff Fred Smith is a citizen of the State of California who purchased a Forest River RV in Arizona during February 2019. (DE 1 ¶¶ 58, 59.) In deciding to purchase a Forest River RV, the Complaint alleges that Mr. Smith attended a trade show in California and relied on representations made by Forest River at the trade show when deciding to purchase his RV. (DE 1 ¶ 61.)

Each Plaintiff had a “Limited Warranty” covering their vehicle for a period of one year against “substantial defects in materials and workmanship attributable to [Forest River].” (DE 1 ¶ 106.) However, the one-year Limited Warranty contained a restriction on the limitations period: “No action to enforce express or implied warranties shall be commenced later than ninety (90) days after expiration of the warranty period.” (DE 19-1.) Plaintiffs acknowledge in their Complaint that the Limited Warranty includes this durational limitation (DE 1 ¶ 110), but allege (1) that the Limited Warranty was provided only after the purchase (DE 1 ¶ 109), and (2) that Forest River at all times “knew Class Vehicles suffered from the Axle Defect . . . yet failed to disclose the Defect to Plaintiffs ....” (DE 1 ¶ 110.)

After purchasing their Forest River RVs, the Complaint alleges the axle defect resulted in “costly repairs, loss of vehicle use, substantial loss in value and resale value of the vehicles, and other related damage.” (DE ¶ 241.) Plaintiffs Kuykendall, Trupp, Herinckx, and Whitmire each sought coverage under Forest River's Limited Warranty. (DE 1 ¶¶ 24, 34, 39, 53.) Plaintiffs Kuykendall, Trupp, and Herinckx were denied coverage under the Limited Warranty (DE 1 ¶¶ 24, 39, and 53), while Plaintiff Whitmire's request for coverage was ignored by Forest River (DE 1 ¶ 34.)

On November 17, 2020, Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit, asserting fourteen claims in their complaint:

Count I - Violations of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act (DE 1 ¶¶ 120-31);

Count II - Violations of California Unfair Competition Laws (DE 1 ¶¶ 132-38);

Count III(a)^[1] - Breach of Express Warranty Pursuant to California's Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (DE 1 ¶¶ 139-56);

Count III(b) - Breach of Implied Warranty Pursuant to California's Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (DE 1 ¶¶ 157-68);

Count IV - Violation of Kansas Consumer Protection Act (DE 1 ¶¶ 169-79);

Count V - Violation of Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (DE 1 ¶¶ 180-89);

Count VI - Violation of the Nevada Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DE 1 ¶¶ 190-201);

Count VII - Violations of Washington Consumer Protection Act (DE 1 ¶¶ 202-14);

Count VIII - Violations of the Oregon Unlawful Trade Practices Act (DE 1 ¶¶ 215-28);

Count IX - Violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (DE 1 ¶¶ 229-38);

Count X - Breach of Express Warranty (DE 1 ¶¶ 239-45);

Count XI - Breach of Implied Warranty (DE 1 ¶¶ 246-50);

Count XII - Common Law Fraud (DE 1 ¶¶ 251-54);

Count XIII - Unjust Enrichment (DE 1 ¶¶ 255-58).^[2]

Forest River moved to dismiss all counts for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. (DE 18.)

B. Standard of Review

In reviewing a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), the Court construes the complaint in the light most...