United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
EVERETTE L. CARRIGG, PATSY O. CARRIGG, Plaintiffs,
v.
GENERAL R.V. CENTER, INC., CORNERSTONE UNITED, INC., THE HUNTINGTON NATIONAL BANK Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT
TERRENCE G. BERG, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiffs
Everette L. Carrigg and Patsy O. Carrigg purchased a used
recreational vehicle (“RV”) from Defendant
General R.V. Center, Inc. (“General RV”).
According to the Carriggs, shortly after they purchased the
RV, it became clear the vehicle was defective and not safe
for its intended use. Plaintiffs are now asserting claims for
violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. §
2301 et seq., breach of express and implied warranties,
fraudulent misrepresentation, and breach of contract. The
case is before the Court on motions for summary judgment
filed by General RV and by Defendant Cornerstone United,
Inc., a party to the service contract Plaintiffs purchased
through General RV. ECF Nos. 22, 23. For reasons explained
below, the Court will grant Cornerstone’s and General
RV’s motions for summary judgment.
BACKGROUND
In late
2016, Plaintiffs Everett Carrigg and Patsy Carrigg, a retired
couple in their mid-to-late 70’s, purchased a used 2013
Thor Challenger recreational vehicle (“RV”) from
Defendant General R.V. Center, Inc. (“General
RV”). ECF No. 16, PageID.494 (Am. Compl.). As part of
the sale, Plaintiffs traded in their old RV and agreed to pay
an additional $62, 228.33. Id. at PageID.496; ECF
No. 22-1, PageID.562 (“Purchase Agreement”).
Along with the Thor Challenger RV, they also purchased a
three-year service warranty serviced by Cornerstone United,
Inc. ECF No. 16, PageID.494. Plaintiffs contend that
throughout the process of purchasing the RV a General RV
salesman, Julius “Juice” Tatum, as well as other
agents of General RV-including a sales manager, financing
manager, general manager, and service manager-made
misrepresentations about the condition and quality of the RV,
as well as the applicable warranties. ECF No. 16, PageID.496;
ECF No. 29-2, PageID.722–23 (Patsy Carrigg Aff.). These
alleged misrepresentations, which Plaintiffs say they relied
on to their detriment, form the basis of this lawsuit.
According
to Plaintiffs, representatives of General RV on multiple
occasions averred that the RV they ultimately purchased was
in excellent condition and “came with the remainder of
a 10-year manufacturer’s bumper-to-bumper factory
warranty that specifically covered any structural
defects.” ECF No. 16, PageID.496; ECF No. 29-2,
PageID.722– 23. Contrary to General RV’s alleged
representations that the vehicle was “like new”
at the time of purchase, Plaintiffs contend the RV had
“major structural damage” and, as they later
claim to have discovered, had previously been totaled and its
chassis replaced with a salvage chassis. ECF No. 16,
PageID.497; ECF No. 29-2, PageID.730. The advertised
“bumper-to-bumper” manufacturer’s warranty
had in fact expired in 2014, two years before Plaintiffs
purchased the vehicle. ECF No. 35, PageID.1005 (Celina Tyler
Aff.). Plaintiffs further urge that representatives of
General RV misrepresented the scope of the three-year
Cornerstone warranty they purchased at the dealership,
reassuring them that the warranty would cover any needed
repairs to fix structural or mechanical problems with the
vehicle. ECF No. 29-2, PageID.724. Essentially, Plaintiffs
maintain that General RV’s salesman and managers made
express oral representations to them about the condition of
the vehicle and the manufacturer’s warranty, that those
representations were false, and that Plaintiffs relied on
them to their detriment.
The
purchase agreement governing the RV’s sale is a
two-sided document with an “all-caps” integration
clause above the purchasers’ signature line explaining
that the written agreement contains the entire agreement
between Plaintiffs and General RV. ECF No. 22-1, PageID.562.
That provision also alerts signatories to other terms and
conditions contained in the agreement-including an “as
is” and exclusion of warranties provision located on
the reverse side of the agreement. Id. The
integration clause reads:
THIS PURCHASE AGREEMENT CONTAINS THE ENTIRE UNDERSTANDING
BETWEEN GENERAL RV AND PURCHASER. NO ONE HAS AUTHORITY TO
MAKE ANY REPRESENTATION BEYOND THIS AGREEMENT. NO OTHER
REPRESENTATIONS OR INDUCEMENTS, VERBAL OR WRITTEN HAVE BEEN
MADE, WHICH ARE NOT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT. PURCHASER HAS
NOT RELIED ON ANYTHING NOT WRITTEN INTO THIS PURCHASE
AGREEMENT SUCH THAT NOTHING ELSE IS THE BASIS OF THE BARGAIN
OR IS ENFORCEABLE AGAINST GENERAL RV, EVEN IF ALLEGED TO BE A
MISREPRESENTATION. BY SIGNING BELOW, PURCHASER ACKNOWLEDGES
THAT PURCHASER HAS RECEIVED A COPY OF THIS AGREEMENT AND THAT
PURCHASER HAS READ AND UNDERSTANDS THE TERMS OF THIS
AGREEMENT, INCLUDING THOSE PRINTED ON THE REVERSE SIDE, WHICH
INCLUDE AN “AS IS” CLAUSE, A NON-REFUNDABLE
DEPOSIT STATEMENT, AND A CHOICE OF LAW AND FORUM SELECTION
CLAUSES INDICATING THAT MICHIGAN LAW APPLIES TO ALL POTENTIAL
DISPUTES AND THAT ALL CLAIMS MUST BE FILED IN MICHIGAN.
ECF No. 22-1, PageID.562.
The
“as is” purchase warning and express exclusion of
warranties on the reverse side of the agreement states:
EXCLUSION OF WARRANTIES, “AS IS” PURCHASE
PURCHASER UNDERSTANDS THAT THERE MAY BE WRITTEN WARRANTIES
COVERING THIS RV, BUT THAT THESE WARANTIES ARE OFFERED BY THE
MANUFACTURER OF THE RV . . . . PURCHASER UNDERSTANDS THAT
DEALER OFFERS NO WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, ON THIS RV.
THIS RV IS SOLD “AS IS” BY DEALER, AND DEALER
DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT
NOT LIMITED TO ANY IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR
FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. This document is not a
warranty and nothing that Dealer says or does creates a
warranty . . . . This is true even if Purchaser purchases a
service contract . . . . Also, since Dealer provides no
warranties from Dealer, any written warranty from a
manufacturer of the vehicle or its components is
Purchaser’s sole and exclusive remedy for any problem
that Purchaser may have with the vehicle or any appliance or
component.
ECF No. 22-1, PageID.563. This “as is” provision
is the eleventh of sixteen different terms and conditions
described on the reverse side of the purchase agreement:
(Matter
Omitted)
The
font, which is small and somewhat difficult to read, appears
to be no larger than that used for other provisions on this
same page of the purchase agreement, though portions of the
“as is” disclaimer are capitalized, and some
parts both capitalized and bolded. ECF No. 22-1, PageID.563.
No. other provision in the purchase agreement is both
capitalized and bolded. See Id.
Plaintiffs
also signed a separate General RV “as is” and
warranty disclaimer form, thereby again acknowledging that
the RV was purchased “as is” and that the
two-sided purchase agreement is “the only document that
contains the terms and conditions of [the] agreement with
General RV.” ECF No. 22-1, PageID.565. The form uses
the phrase “as is” in its title and capitalizes,
bolds, and underlines that term:
(Matter
Omitted) Id. The same warranty disclaimer former
also includes an additional exclusion of warranties ...