Wilson v. MarineMax E., Inc.
| Decision Date | 26 March 2018 |
| Docket Number | 1:16–cv–812–WSD |
| Parties | Michael WILSON, Plaintiff, v. MARINEMAX EAST, INC., and Sea Ray Boats, Inc., a Division of Brunswick Corporation, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Georgia |
Thomas Michael Flinn, Office of Thomas Michael Flinn, Carrollton, GA, for Plaintiff.
Joseph J. Angersola, Jack Allen Parker, Swift, Currie, McGhee & Hiers, LLP, Atlanta, GA, for Defendants.
This matter is before the Court on Defendant Sea Ray Boats, Inc., a Division of Brunswick Corporation's ("Sea Ray") Motion for Summary Judgment [38], Defendant MarineMax East, Inc.'s ("MarineMax") Motion for Summary Judgment [40], Defendants' Motion to Exclude Opinion Testimony of Robert Newman [39], and Plaintiff Michael Wilson's ("Plaintiff") Motion to Strike the Declaration of McLamb [53].
Plaintiff purchased a SeaRay 330 DA boat. That boat immediately had Kohler generator issues and engine issues and eventually caught fire on the dock. ( [46] Wilson Dep. at 9:30, 11:12–23). Sea Ray offered Plaintiff a substitute Sea Ray 350 DA boat in exchange for the 330 DA—boat for boat. ( [46] Wilson Dep. 14:15, 15:13).
On or about February 19, 2014, Plaintiff entered into a Purchase Agreement (the "Purchase Agreement") with Defendant MarineMax for the purchase of a 2014 Sea Ray 350 DA boat (the "Boat"). ( [46] Wilson Dep. at 22:14–23; [46.6] ). The Boat came with a Limited Warranty issued by Sea Ray (the "Limited Warranty"). ( [46] Wilson Dep. at 28:20–25, 29:1–7; [47.3] ). The Boat also came with separate warranties for the Kohler generator and the Mercruiser engines from their respective manufacturers. ( [46] Wilson Dep. at 100:21–101:7; [42] Dinan Dep. at 46:10–13; [49.10] ).
The Purchase Agreement provides that warranties are generally excluded by MarineMax ( [46] Wilson Dep. at 22:21–23:1; [46.6] at 2). At the time of Plaintiff's acquisition of the Boat, he executed the "Passport Premiere Registration Page" providing him with a six year extended warranty from Brunswick Product Protection Corporation (the "Extended Warranty"). ( [46] Wilson Dep. at 23:20–24:6; [46.8] ). The Passport Premier Registration Page identifies MarineMax East, Inc., as the "Issuing Dealer" and Mike Crisell, MarineMax's business manager, as the "Selling Individual." ( [46.8] ). The parties dispute the nature of the Extended Warranty. Plaintiff contends that he entered into a service contract with Marine Max East, Inc. which provided an extended service agreement on the Boat. ( [46] Wilson Dep. at 24:3–6; [46.8] ). Defendants assert that Plaintiff separately executed the Extended Warranty, that the Extended Warranty is distinct from service contracts MarineMax offers to customers, and that Plaintiff did not purchase or obtain any service contracts from MarineMax for the Boat. ( [64.2] McLamb Decl. at ¶¶ 9–10).
Plaintiff took delivery of the Boat in February 2014 and used the Boat on a regular basis at least through August 2015. ( [46] Wilson Dep. at 49:24–50:4). Plaintiff admits to using the Boat year round, at some points daily. ( [46] Wilson Dep. at 49:24–50:4). He also acknowledged both of his sons were permitted to use the Boat without him present. ( [46] Wilson Dep. at 47:25–48:7). Plaintiff testified normal use for him was "out there several times a week, weather permitting." ( [46] Wilson Dep. at 63:21–24). Plaintiff's use included overnight trips on the Boat. ( [46] Wilson Dep. at 64:10–15).
The Electronic Control Module ("ECM") for the Boat records the number of hours of engine use. During the manufacturing process, Sea Ray water tested the Boat and placed 2 hours on the Boat's engines. ( [64.1] Raustad Decl. at ¶ 5). Defendants' expert, Michael Griffin, inspected the Boat on May 22, 2016 and recorded 509.2 engine hours on the Boat. ( [45] Griffin Dep. at 6:7–13). Mr. Griffin conducted a follow-up inspection on January 30, 2017, and recorded that the Boat engines had 581.6 hours. ( [45] Griffin Dep. at 6:7–13).
Plaintiff disputes the accuracy of the engine hours reported by the ECM. Plaintiff testified that the "hours meters do not work correctly." ( [46] Wilson Dep. at 97:25, 98:4–19). Plaintiff explained that there are two keys you have to turn on to operate the engine side of the boat and "[i]f you leave those keys on and the boat is not running, your hours meter continues to click." ( [46] Wilson Dep. at 98:1–6). Plaintiff also notes that the ECM does not tell you if the boat is in gear. ( [45] Griffin Dep. at 60:20–24). Plaintiff estimates that the Boat was operated for approximately 130 hours in 2014 and 130 hours in 2015. ( [46] Wilson Dep. at 97:14–17).
The history of the Boat is well documented with work orders and email correspondence between Plaintiff and MarineMax and largely undisputed. Upon delivery, Plaintiff requested the Boat stay near the MarineMax service facility at Lake Lanier, where he could use it and ensure there were no "bugs" for 30 days. ( [46] Wilson Dep. at 20:11–18). Plaintiff used the Boat recreationally at Lake Lanier for several weeks. ( [46] Wilson Dep. at 33:21–25, 34:1–4). In March of 2014, MarineMax delivered the Boat to Plaintiff at Lake Allatoona. ( [46] Wilson Dep. at 29:16–24, [47.4] ).
Throughout its use, Plaintiff experienced a number of issues with the Boat, most notably with the engines and on-board generator. Plaintiff maintains that generator issues hindered use of the Boat. While the Boat can operate without the generator being functional, electrical items such as air conditioning and radio will not function. ( [46] Wilson Dep. at 46:10–13); [54.3] at ¶ 7; [55.1] at ¶ 7). Plaintiff also experienced engine codes on numerous occasions. Plaintiff maintains that the boat operates in reduced functionality when the engine codes are being shown. ( [46] Wilson Dep. at 42:25–43–2). Plaintiff also asserts that the engines were "babied" as a result of frequent error codes and performance issues and that engine RPM historical data supports that assertion. ( [46] Wilson Dep. at 35:25, 46:10–13; [43] P. Wilson Dep. at 21:20; [45] Griffin Dep. at 13:14–15, 53–54).
Plaintiff first experienced issues with the generator on March 2, 2014. ( [46] Wilson Dep. at 34:5–25). That same date, MarineMax sent two technicians to Plaintiff's Boat and repaired the generator. ( [46] Wilson Dep. at 35:10–16, 37:25, 38:1–3). MarineMax's Service Team Leader, Bob Dinan, one of the two technicians that fixed the generator stated the issue arose from a failure to winterize thereby causing freeze damage. ( [42] Dinan Dep. at 30:1–12).
Unbeknownst to anyone at the time, the Boat suffered from a design defect affecting the generator. On November 17, 2015, more than 20 months after the initial repair of the generator, Sea Ray issued a Service Bulletin for Sea Ray 350DA model boats with regards to the Generator Water Pickup Update. ( [64.1] Raustad Decl. at ¶ 12). Sea Ray determined the Groco hi-speed water pickup part had a v-notch that is too large and can cause water to flood the engine cylinder area of the generator at higher speeds if the seacock is open and the generator is not running. ( [64.1] Raustad Decl. at ¶ 9). This results in hydrolock. An engine that is hydrolocked has water in the combustion chambers and the water cannot compress like air does, so it "would be almost seized." ( [42] Dinan Dep. at 45:17–21).
Also in March of 2014, Plaintiff reported the windlass anchor (the "Windlass") was inoperable. ( [48.1] ). MarineMax's work order for this repair indicated the Windlass's breaker had been tripped. ( [48.1] ). The work order further stated the power breakers on the dock pedestal were turned off and Plaintiff was advised that the Windlass can pull a large amount of amperage and it is important to keep batteries fully charged. ( [48.1] ).
A May 20, 2014, work order (# 79758) documents a number of problems experienced by Plaintiff. Plaintiff reported that the "Windlass motor has come loose off of it's [sic] mounting bracket" and the technician stated that the "windlass motor mounting bolts sheared off at the base of the upper unit." ( [42.1] at 14). Plaintiff also reported engine alarm codes on both starboard and port engines being experienced. ( [42.1] at 15–17). Defendants, along with the engine manufacturer, worked to fix the engines over the next few weeks.
On June 4, 2014, Plaintiff sent an email to MarineMax and Sea Ray employees expressing his dissatisfaction with the Boat. ( [46] Wilson Dep. at 39:2–25, 39:32–40:25; [48.3] ). The email included the subject line "I am ready to return this boat and be made while [sic]" and requested "an address for legal service because this entire experience sucks!!" ( [48.3] ). Plaintiff confirmed the engines worked, but he was receiving error codes. ( [46] Wilson Dep. at 42:23–25, 43:1–2). Thereafter, Plaintiff met Jim Helmick of Mercury regarding the engines. ( [46] Wilson Dep. at 41:23–25, 42:1–2). The repair records reveal Mercury worked directly with Plaintiff to complete the work and Mercury approved the claim under its engine warranty. ( [46] Wilson Dep. at 41:23–25, 42:1–2; [42] Dinan Dep. 42:9–16).
After MarineMax technicians failed to completely resolve the engine issues after repair attempts and sea trials, a Mercury technical representative examined the Boat and seatrialed it again. ( [42.1] at 16). The work order states ...
To continue reading
Request your trial