Bollom v. Brunswick Corporation

Background

Patrick Bollom and Colleen Bollom bought a new 2015 Sea Ray Venture 370 Sport Cruiser from MarineMax, Inc. The total price, including taxes and fees, was $358,646.25. The boat was manufactured by Sea Ray Boats, a division of Brunswick Corporation. The purchase agreement stated that the boat was sold “as is” and disclaimed MarineMax’s express and implied warranties. Sea Ray separately provided a limited warranty requiring the selling dealer to repair or replace covered defects.

The Bolloms reported repeated problems during the 2016, 2017, and 2018 boating seasons, including failures involving the boat’s generator, electrical systems, anchor, fuel gauges, speedometer, carbon-monoxide detector, and other equipment. MarineMax attempted repairs, but some problems recurred. The Bolloms repeatedly told the defendants that they wanted to return the boat. They ultimately sued under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, Minnesota warranty law, and Minnesota’s statute governing revocation of acceptance.

Expert testimony

The defendants moved to exclude testimony from David Hallman and David Lynch under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, which governs expert testimony.

Hallman offered opinions that the boat had an underlying electrical-system problem and that grounding or high-resistance connections might explain some of its failures. The court found Hallman qualified in areas including fire investigation, materials research, accident reconstruction, and mechanics, but not in boat electrical systems or electrical systems generally. The court also found his opinions insufficiently tested. It therefore granted the motion to exclude Hallman’s testimony.

Lynch offered opinions about the boat’s saleability and value. The Bolloms did not oppose the motion to exclude his testimony. The court therefore granted the defendants’ unopposed motion to exclude Lynch’s testimony.

Summary judgment

Summary judgment is a decision without a trial when the evidence shows no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the result. The court ruled as follows.

Express-warranty claim against Sea Ray (Count 2). The court found a genuine factual dispute about whether Sea Ray’s repair-and-replacement warranty failed to provide its promised remedy because the repairs may not have successfully resolved recurring problems. But the court held that the Bolloms had not presented evidence from which a jury could determine their damages with reasonable probability. The warranty claim therefore could not proceed, and summary judgment was granted to Sea Ray on Count 2. The claim was dismissed with prejudice.

Implied-warranty claim (Count 3). MarineMax was entitled to summary judgment because the Bolloms conceded that the purchase agreement effectively disclaimed MarineMax’s implied warranty of merchantability. The court ruled that Sea Ray’s disclaimer of implied warranties was ineffective under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act because Sea Ray issued a written warranty. However, the Bolloms still failed to provide sufficient evidence of damages. Summary judgment was therefore granted to MarineMax and Sea Ray on Count 3, and the claim was dismissed with prejudice.

Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act claim (Count 1). The court held that the Act’s provisions requiring refunds or replacements after a reasonable number of repair attempts apply to full warranties, not Sea Ray’s limited warranty. The Act can still provide a federal claim for breach of a limited warranty, but that claim depends on a viable underlying state-law warranty claim. Because the Bolloms’ warranty claims failed, their Magnuson-Moss claims also failed. The court granted summary judgment to both defendants on Count 1 and dismissed it with prejudice.

Revocation-of-acceptance claim (Count 4). Revocation of acceptance allows a buyer to return goods when a defect substantially impairs their value, the buyer reasonably expected the defect to be cured, the defect was not seasonably cured, and the buyer gave timely and clear notice, among other requirements. The court found factual disputes about whether the boat’s repeated operational and safety-related problems substantially impaired its value and whether the Bolloms’ continued use of the boat was consistent with an intent to revoke acceptance. The court also found factual disputes about whether their revocation was timely, including whether the defendants’ repair assurances delayed the lawsuit and extended the limitations period.

The court rejected MarineMax’s liability on Count 4 because the purchase agreement disclaimed MarineMax’s warranties and MarineMax had fulfilled its obligation to sell the specified new boat. But the court held that the absence of a direct contract between the Bolloms and Sea Ray did not require dismissal of the revocation claim against Sea Ray. Summary judgment was denied as to Sea Ray on Count 4.

Order

Judge Michael J. Davis granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Summary judgment was granted in its entirety to MarineMax, and all claims against MarineMax were dismissed with prejudice. Summary judgment was granted to Sea Ray on Counts 1, 2, and 3, which were dismissed with prejudice, and denied as to Sea Ray on Count 4. The court also granted both motions to exclude the testimony of David Hallman and David Lynch.