PITTSBURGH – A class action lawsuit claims that a manufacturer of sailboats and powerboats has violated the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, through preventing third-party professionals from performing maintenance operations on their boats, such as those purchased by the plaintiffs, without voiding the owners’ respective warranties.
Brian Lovett of Illinois and Phil and Melodee Bartel of Canada (individually and on behalf of all others similarly-situated) filed suit in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas on Oct. 6 versus Beneteau Group America, Inc. of Fort Lauderdale, Fla., plus Beneteau, S.A. (doing business as “Groupe Beneteau”) and Construction Navale Bordeaux, S.A. (doing business as “CNB”), both of France.
“Plaintiff Brian Lovett purchased a 2020 Lagoon 52F Boat with the remainder of a three-year warranty which began February 2020 and was set to expire February 2023, and subject to a yearly inspection. At the time of purchase, the boat’s warranty was valid and had undergone a one-year warranty check. Mr. Lovett’s boat was subject to defendants’ warranty, including its unlawful tying provisions and its unclear and inconspicuous description of the obligations required of Mr. Lovett,” the suit states.
“While sailing, Mr. Lovett experienced several major issues with his boat. On July 29, 2021, he contacted various representatives of defendants to troubleshoot the issues. On Sept. 3, 2021 he was told by defendants’ National U.S. Sales Manager that there was a warranty attached to the boat. However, the U.S. dealer to which defendants directed him to take the Boat for repair claimed that he would need to pay for repair service first, then seek a claim for reimbursement.”
The suit goes on to say that on Nov. 2, 2021, after significant back and forth, the defendants offered to set up repairs with an authorized service center in the U.S., but would not guarantee that it would all be performed within warranty: “Work that is not designated by the Lagoon factory as warranty, and any additional work, plus all extraneous costs that are not covered by the terms and conditions of the limited Lagoon warranty (such as dockage), will be the responsibility of the vessel, that is, you.”
“Among other times, in or about November 2021, defendants contacted Mr. Lovett and told him that ‘to remind you, all Lagoon warranty works must be handled by a Lagoon dealer in U.S. or an authorized Service Center.’ Defendants also represented to Mr. Lovett that he would need to pay haul out fees and docking fees while the boat was being repaired, and would also have to pay for the inspection in order for the warranty to be renewed its final third year,” the suit says.
“In the course of these exchanges, defendants has sent Mr. Lovett an email that included a different version of the warranty with differing language, but both warranty documents are subject to the ‘authorized service center’ limitation and the yearly inspection requirement. Defendants have also represented that each warranty claim needs pre-approval to be covered, and that defendants would have final say on the costs covered by non-authorized service centers.”
The suit continues that similar events transpired for the Bartel plaintiffs.
“Plaintiffs Phil and Melodee Bartel purchased a 2020 Beneteau brand Oceanis 46.1 boat on Nov. 29, 2021. The Bartels’ boat was subject to defendants’ warranty, including its unlawful tying provisions and its unclear and inconspicuous description of the obligations required of the Bartels,” the suit says.
“However, the authorized dealer to whom defendants directed the Bartels for their one-year service inspection was unresponsive and they had trouble getting the inspection, due January 2023, to preserve the Bartels’ boat warranty. Nonetheless, they did complete their warranty inspection, for which they paid out of pocket.”
For counts of violating the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, the plaintiffs are seeking certification of this case as a class action, the appointment of plaintiffs as class representatives, and appoint plaintiffs’ counsel to represent the class; a finding that the defendants’ actions constitute violations of the Act; judgment against the defendants for all damages, injunctive, declaratory and other equitable relief sought; all costs, including experts’ fees, attorneys’ fees, the costs of prosecuting this action and such other legal and equitable relief as the Court may deem appropriate.
The plaintiffs are represented by Edwin J. Kilpela Jr. and Elizabeth Pollock-Avery of Lynch Carpenter, in Pittsburgh.
The defendants have not yet obtained legal counsel.
Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas case GD-23-011659
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com