eNotes: Liability – April 2024 – Virginia

SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARIES

Virginia Case Summary

Anderson v. Ford Motor Co.
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
No. 3:22-cv-758-HEH

Decided: February 27, 2024

Plaintiff was entitled to a jury trial on the limited issue of whether she was provided REV’s warranty at the time she signed the warranty acknowledgement form upon purchasing a motorhome.

Background

On May 26, 2021, Plaintiff ordered a custom 2021 Vacationer 36F from General R.V. Center, Inc. for $190,103.00. Ford Motor Company manufactured the chassis, and REV manufactured the motorhome’s “house.” Both Ford and REV supplied warranties on the product. The vehicle almost immediately experienced issues. Plaintiff took the vehicle to General RV Center in Ashland, VA to get the vehicle repaired under the REV warranty for defects. On October 22, 2021, Plaintiff began a cross-country trip and the vehicle had issues the entire time. She returned the vehicle to General RV in Ashland. The vehicle was shipped to a specialty facility in Oregon for repair work. Plaintiff filed suit and Defendant REV filed a Motion to compel arbitration under the warranty Plaintiff signed. The Court treated the Motion to compel arbitration as a Motion to dismiss for improper venue.

Virginia law controlled the question of whether the parties reached an agreement to arbitrate. REV asserted Plaintiff must arbitrate because she signed a warranty acknowledgment form upon purchasing the vehicle. Plaintiff acknowledged she was provided with the warranty. The warranty disclaimer specifically states that “any claim or controversy . . . shall be settled by arbitration administered by the American Arbitration Association.” Plaintiff admits she signed the form, but claims she was unaware of the arbitration provision and that REV concealed the terms of the warranty. She signed an Affidavit stating she did not know of the provision and never would have signed away her right to a jury trial. Plaintiff’s sworn declaration asserts she was aware there was a warranty, but was not aware of its contents, including the arbitration clause, even though she signed the waiver.

Holding

The Court considered whether there was a meeting of the minds sufficient to form a contract. The Court determined there was a material dispute of genuine fact as to whether Plaintiff was provided REV’s warranty at the time she signed the warranty acknowledgment. That said, the Court found that a jury should decide whether Plaintiff was given the warranty for review. If the jury decides Plaintiff was given the warranty, the case should be dismissed and sent to arbitration. If the jury decides Plaintiff was not given the warranty, Plaintiff would be entitled to a jury trial on the entire case.

Questions about this case can be directed to Sean Pico at (804) 522-5244 or spico@tthlaw.com.