## Facts

- Jeff and Liz Anderson purchased a “Tourmaster” recreational vehicle (RV) manufactured by Gulf Stream Coach, Inc.
- The RV was sold as a “2009 model year” vehicle but was completed during the 2008 production cycle and allegedly had 2008 model-year characteristics.
- The Andersons alleged numerous defects in construction and performance that persisted after purchase.
- The Andersons also alleged Gulf Stream misrepresented the RV’s engine size/power by selling a vehicle with a 300-horsepower engine instead of the advertised, more powerful engine.
- Gulf Stream provided a written limited warranty.
- Over several months, the Andersons sought repairs through their dealer and through multiple attempts by a Gulf Stream factory representative, but the problems allegedly continued.
- The Andersons sued under Indiana warranty law, the Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act (MMWA), the Indiana Deceptive Consumer Sales Act (IDCSA), and for common-law fraud; the district court granted summary judgment for Gulf Stream on all claims.

## Issues

1. Whether the record required summary judgment that the Andersons failed to provide Gulf Stream a reasonable opportunity to cure alleged defects, barring express warranty, implied warranty, and MMWA claims.
2. Whether the evidence could support an IDCSA “uncured deceptive act” claim based on alleged engine-size misrepresentation.
3. Whether claims tied to the RV’s “2009 model year” designation were properly resolved on summary judgment given federal model-year rules and disputed evidence about what was disclosed to the buyers.
4. Whether the evidence could support fraud and IDCSA “incurable deceptive act” claims requiring intent to deceive.

## Decision

- Reversed summary judgment on the Indiana express warranty, implied warranty of merchantability, and MMWA claims, holding a jury could find Gulf Stream received a reasonable opportunity to cure.
- Reversed summary judgment on the IDCSA “uncured deceptive act” claim based on alleged misrepresentation of engine size.
- Held federal regulations prohibited the “2009” model-year designation under the vehicle’s production timing and characteristics, but ruled that disputed facts about disclosure to the Andersons precluded summary judgment on related disclosure-based theories.
- Affirmed summary judgment for Gulf Stream on common-law fraud and IDCSA “incurable deceptive act” claims because the evidence did not support intent to deceive.
- Remanded for further proceedings consistent with these rulings.

## Legal Principles

- Under Indiana warranty law and the MMWA, whether a warrantor was given a “reasonable opportunity to cure” is generally a fact question; summary judgment is improper where evidence shows repeated repair attempts and continued defects.
- Under the IDCSA, misrepresenting a material product characteristic (such as engine size) can support an “uncured deceptive act” claim when the alleged deception remains uncorrected after notice and an opportunity to cure.
- A regulatory violation concerning model-year designation may establish impropriety of the designation, but state-law liability may still depend on fact disputes about what the consumer was told and understood.
- Common-law fraud and IDCSA “incurable deceptive act” claims require proof of intent to deceive; negligent or mistaken misstatements, without evidence of scienter, do not suffice.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit reinstated the Andersons’ warranty, MMWA, and IDCSA “uncured deceptive act” claims because the opportunity-to-cure and misrepresentation questions turned on disputed facts, while affirming dismissal of fraud and IDCSA “incurable deceptive act” claims for lack of evidence of intent to deceive.


Anderson v. Gulf Stream Coach, Inc., 662 F.3d 775 (7th Cir. 2011)