PITTSBURGH – Plaintiffs behind a class action lawsuit which claimed 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, without voiding the owners’ respective warranties, are fighting for the suit to stay in its court of origin.
Brian Lovett of Illinois and Phil and Melodee Bartel of Canada (individually and on behalf of all others similarly-situated) first 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 stated.
“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 went 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 said.
“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 continued 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 said.
“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.”
UPDATE
Defendant Beneteau Group America, Inc. filed a motion to send the case to the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas’ Commerce and Complex Litigation Center on Nov. 27, arguing that facility was better equipped to handle the logistics of the case.
“This case is further appropriate for the Center as it brings allegations ‘arising out of commercial transactions involving…breaches of contract…[and] business torts’ and ‘involves complex factual or legal issues.’ Plaintiffs have brought allegations that defendants violated the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act due to the nature of defendants’ contractual warranties, as well as allegations of intentional misrepresentations that allegedly permitted defendants to ‘monopolize’ the repair industry,” according to the motion.
“This will require parsing both a robust factual record involving the circumstances of each class action member’s purchase of the boat and subsequent contract, as well as the review of an intricate set of federal statutes. Further, the class action complaint raises complex legal and factual questions about the interplay between the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and principles of personal jurisdiction, as each plaintiff and defendant is from a different jurisdiction outside of Pennsylvania, and the at-issue vessels were manufactured and purchased each in different locations outside of Pennsylvania.”
The plaintiffs filed a reply brief opposing any move of the case, on Nov. 29.
“Putting aside defendant’s unnecessary and unwarranted effort to deviate from the rules of procedure, the Center should not accept this case because doing so would be inefficient and unnecessarily duplicative. Per its own rules, the Center accepts cases to ‘provide an efficient, cost-effective, timely, and fair resolution of the case.’ None of those core interests would be served by accepting the transfer of this matter.’ Currently, there are five matters asserting similar Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act claims that have been or will be assigned to the class action judge pursuant to Local Rule 249(3). In one of these cases, preliminary objections, which required the class action judge to consider various standing and statutory arguments, have already been decided.”
“Given that the class action judge is already presiding over multiple matters that raise claims similar to, or nearly identical to, the ones raised in this matter, transferring this matter to the Center would result in inefficiencies and increase the likelihood of conflicting rulings. In contrast, a single judge presiding over these cases would maximize efficiency, ensure lower costs to litigants due to less briefing of the legal issues, result in a more swift resolution of these matters and ensure consistent rulings.”
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.
Defendant Beneteau Group America, Inc. is represented by David R. Osipovich and Eleanora M. Kaloyeropoulou of K&L Gates, also in Pittsburgh.
Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas case GD-23-011659
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com