Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-13-2012, 02:12 PM   #41
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 273
Unfortunately, this is a prime example of “should’ve, would’ve, could’ve” on the behalf of the plaintiff and should warn folks they have to be responsible for protecting their own interest. From what the plaintiff writes, it is very clear that the plaintiff made a mistake and the manufacturer made at least 1 mistake. (I am not ignoring the dealership, as their part hinges on the actions they took as an expert after reviewing damage as revealed in the photographs supplied by the plaintiff – remember the dealer is one expert, with the manufacturer being the other.) In the beginning, at time of damage discovery which was in the 4th month of ownership (July), the plaintiff was in a very good position; however, he made 1 critical mistake at minimum, possibly other mistakes (one cannot tell by the information provided).

His mistake was his failure to transfer custody of the trailer to the dealership in an effort to save $1000 after the discovery of problems.

This was after My wife and i had paid a professional $500 to pull the camper in my lake front spot at my campground and hook up and level. We had to do this due to the location which was hazardous for me to attempt on my own. These being said it would have been another $500 to pull out and that amount again to put back in again. [Posted January 2012]

Whose fault or decision was it to place the trailer in a location that is “hazardous” to the plaintiff whereas the plaintiff hired “a professional” for $500 to tow and setup the trailer at plaintiff’s lakefront property? The plaintiff made the decision. (Hence: saving a $1000 as opposed to returning the trailer to the dealership at the time of discovery.) Whose decision was it to not transfer custody to the dealer at the onset of discovery of problems? It was the plaintiff’s decision.

The dealer by the very nature of his business, selling RV’; servicing RV’s; and repairing RV’s, has experts on staff and is the pivotal point of the plaintiff’s case. The dealership, through 1 of their on-staff experts, should have recognized that 1 possible cause of the damage as revealed in the photographs was water/moisture. The plaintiff writes:

They said they didnt know what the problem was and if it continued to get worse to wait till spring of 2011 when they ( they shut down in the winter) re-opened ( still under warranty).

If the dealer’s representative to whom the plaintiff showed the photographs to told the plaintiff “they [didn’t] know what the problem was”, as the plaintiff indicates here, they were negligent in that they did not consult the proper authority on staff. As an expert, the dealer should have recognized the damage was due to water and advised the plaintiff to get the trailer into the dealership ASAP. “…wait till spring 2011” does NOTHING to protect the trailer from further water damage. The fact that the dealer “shuts down in the winter” is the dealer’s problem and does NOT excuse them from their dealership warranty obligations as per their contract with FR. The plaintiff’s warranty period does not cease and resume when the dealer closes in the winter and reopens in the spring.

What the plaintiff should have done was to transfer custody of the trailer to the dealer. That would have placed the burden of maintaining the trailer from further damage on the dealer. The trailer could have set on the dealership property and rotted as opposed to setting on the lakefront rotting. Had the dealer not wanted to take custody of the trailer because he shuts down in the winter, the plaintiff should have notified the police so he could have gotten a report and notified FR. Perhaps the FR representative would have awakened him up that it could be water damage.

The biggest thing the plaintiff has going for him is those pictures and the hope that the judge will be highly critical of the dealer (expert) for NOT recognizing water damage in those photographs – as the dealer is the expert. I hope the plaintiff has those pictures dated and followed up with the dealer via a certified registered letter – preferably notarized – providing an account of their initial meeting and notification. Remember those pictures add credibility to the plaintiff’s story when he advises the judge he notified the dealer (expert) who may deny ever having been contacted until after the warranty period. The plaintiff also has an expert – the professional repairer.

As for the manufacturer, their mistake was omitting the gasket. Was that the culprit that set deterioration in motion? Maybe. The plaintiff writes:

I then called a Professional RV repairman who investigated and found …. He had found numerous pin holes on the seal caulking and a missing gasket (from factory) on the roof vent.

If you look at the back of the Alpha Systems document in the trailer owner’s packet, it states under Purchaser’s Obligations: Purchaser is responsible for inspecting Alpha Roof Membrane at the time of delivery. Alpha Systems also advise purchaser to remove loose caulk and to re-caulk and apply lap sealant (also iterated by part time technician poster in this forum thread) during recommended quarterly inspections. My point is that the trailer is a 2009 model year and could have been on the dealer’s lot for a year before purchase. I would certainly raise this point before the judge because time within itself does discriminate nor distinguish itself between dealer and purchaser.

I could go on with other points, but the post is already too long. It is a sad story, but one that should remind owners to think and to be proactive to protect yourself when dealing with warranty issues or any other of life’s issues in the event justice necessitates the wheels of legalities into motion. If life was fair, there would be no need for a justice system.
__________________

__________________
2012 Rockwood 8314BSS
2011 Chevy
Camping, Dutch Oven Cooking, and Homebrewing
campdohbrew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2012, 02:26 PM   #42
Senior Member
 
MilCop4523's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: In a big child free home - except for me
Posts: 1,343
Quote:
Originally Posted by campdohbrew View Post
The biggest thing the plaintiff has going for him is those pictures and the hope that the judge will be highly critical of the dealer (expert) for NOT recognizing water damage in those photographs – as the dealer is the expert. I hope the plaintiff has those pictures dated and followed up with the dealer via a certified registered letter – preferably notarized – providing an account of their initial meeting and notification. Remember those pictures add credibility to the plaintiff’s story when he advises the judge he notified the dealer (expert) who may deny ever having been contacted until after the warranty period. The plaintiff also has an expert – the professional repairer.

...
...

If life was fair, there would be no need for a justice system.
and in ones defence

"If you don't know there's a trampoline in the room, you're not going to dust the ceiling for prints. " ~From the television show Law & Order

meaning that as a non professional nor expert but rather a consumer of the product, he has relied on those self aclaimed professionals who make their lifing off sales and service, as well as manufacturing and selling warranties to steer him in his course of actions - that was until he ran a ground of sorts with heavy damage.


Why would I go looking for a problem behind wall number 2, several layers into the hull if I was not aware of a problem on the outside until it was too late.


We are in a lesser situation with dealers refusing to carry out warranty work unless paid up front and now that the work was carried out and paid for Forest River is ignoring the reimbursement of prepaid repairs.
__________________

__________________
09 Sundance 31.5 XLT Bunkhouse
17 Greywolf 22rr Toy Hauler
and
The new toy hauler - 2016 Ford F150 Supercrew XTR ECOBOOST.
MilCop4523 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2012, 03:46 PM   #43
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 273
Quote:
Originally Posted by MilCop4523 View Post
and in ones defence

meaning that as a non professional nor expert but rather a consumer of the product, he has relied on those self aclaimed professionals who make their lifing off sales and service, as well as manufacturing and selling warranties to steer him in his course of actions - that was until he ran a ground of sorts with heavy damage.


Why would I go looking for a problem behind wall number 2, several layers into the hull if I was not aware of a problem on the outside until it was too late.
Milcop,

I am on board with you. That is why I stress the point that the dealer is the expert (not the plaintiff) - meaning the plaintiff was reliant upon the dealer's expertise when he showed the dealer the photographs. Hopefully for the plaintiff, the judge will see it this way too. The statement which you quote me is in the plaintiff's favor.

The plaintiff would be in a much better position had he transferred custody of the trailer to the dealership at the onset. In other words, he would had rid himself of custody and placed the burden on the dealer in the form of the trailer. Had he done that, he would not find himself in a case of having to prove "who said what." I promise you the plaintiff wishes he would have paid his towing person $500 to deliver the trailer to the dealer at the onset.
__________________
2012 Rockwood 8314BSS
2011 Chevy
Camping, Dutch Oven Cooking, and Homebrewing
campdohbrew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2012, 04:34 PM   #44
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,702
I absolutely agree that the trailer should have been returned to the dealer immediately. This was the OP's decision and all of this could have been avoided. For those of us who purchase and maintain a tow vehicle it costs ten's of thousands of dollars which the OP did not have expend. The 1000 bucks outlay is in exchange for saving big bucks on a tow vehicle.

Something else to remember on all of these posts is we are getting only one side of the story. It would be nice to hear the dealers side as well.
__________________

2011 Flagstaff 831FKBSS
2010 F250 4X4 5.4L 3.73 LS
EQUALIZER E4 1200/12000
lbrjet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2012, 04:42 PM   #45
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Manitoba
Posts: 1,283
The only thing I am sure of is that I would NEVER buy an RV from any dealer that "shut down" for the winter. Obviously a two-bit outfit.
And their refusal to help their customer verifies that.
__________________
crocus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2012, 05:24 PM   #46
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 273
Quote:
Originally Posted by crocus View Post
The only thing I am sure of is that I would NEVER buy an RV from any dealer that "shut down" for the winter. Obviously a two-bit outfit.
And their refusal to help their customer verifies that.
I, too, had those exact thoughts - a major purcahse from a seasonal dealer!
__________________
2012 Rockwood 8314BSS
2011 Chevy
Camping, Dutch Oven Cooking, and Homebrewing
campdohbrew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2012, 10:31 PM   #47
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 273
Quote:
Originally Posted by lbrjet View Post
I absolutely agree that the trailer should have been returned to the dealer immediately. This was the OP's decision and all of this could have been avoided. For those of us who purchase and maintain a tow vehicle it costs ten's of thousands of dollars which the OP did not have expend. The 1000 bucks outlay is in exchange for saving big bucks on a tow vehicle.

Something else to remember on all of these posts is we are getting only one side of the story. It would be nice to hear the dealers side as well.
IbrJet,
You’re absolutely right “returned immediately” and about hearing the dealer’s story.

If anybody believes this story as told by the OP, they have to believe the dealer was a conman who took the OP for something less than average intelligence by asking the OP to wait until spring 2011 for repairs which is when the warranty expires. Remember the OP purchased the trailer in March 2010 and spring starts March 20 of each year. (I did not write ill of the OP.) If you believe the story as described, you have to ask what motivated dealer?
__________________
2012 Rockwood 8314BSS
2011 Chevy
Camping, Dutch Oven Cooking, and Homebrewing
campdohbrew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2012, 07:36 AM   #48
Junior Member
 
07ultra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16
have tryed ins co on leaks and mine told me it is a maintance issue , not covered
__________________
07ultra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2012, 07:59 AM   #49
Senior Member
 
MilCop4523's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: In a big child free home - except for me
Posts: 1,343
Quote:
Originally Posted by campdohbrew View Post
Milcop,

I am on board with you. That is why I stress the point that the dealer is the expert (not the plaintiff) - meaning the plaintiff was reliant upon the dealer's expertise when he showed the dealer the photographs. Hopefully for the plaintiff, the judge will see it this way too. The statement which you quote me is in the plaintiff's favor.

The plaintiff would be in a much better position had he transferred custody of the trailer to the dealership at the onset. In other words, he would had rid himself of custody and placed the burden on the dealer in the form of the trailer. Had he done that, he would not find himself in a case of having to prove "who said what." I promise you the plaintiff wishes he would have paid his towing person $500 to deliver the trailer to the dealer at the onset.
Hind sight is always 20 20. And if we all had nothing going on in our lives we would have no mitigating circumstances to say things took away our ability to place that matter in priority. And some people merely seem to get confused with a whole bunch of legal terms (plaintiff and such).

Both our statements used would tend to support the person having the problems. All they have to remember is - did they do what a RESAONABLE PERSON would have done given the same or similar set of circumstances. If so then I don't think there is a knowledgable judge in the country worth their weight who would find in favor of the company.
__________________
09 Sundance 31.5 XLT Bunkhouse
17 Greywolf 22rr Toy Hauler
and
The new toy hauler - 2016 Ford F150 Supercrew XTR ECOBOOST.
MilCop4523 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2012, 09:53 AM   #50
Senior Member
 
Mark and Linda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Smyrna, Tennessee
Posts: 445
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidmiller View Post
Its a 2009 signature ultra-lite. Similar to a 2904ss layout. We bought it in May of 2010 problems started in August 2010, Fought with the dealer, threatned lawsuit, with no help........Cost me $1200 to replace slide wall and have the roof resealed with Dicor..........
Have you consulted the BBB in your local area? I have a 1991 Nissan PU that I bought new. Around 30k miles that clear coat on it started coming off of the top and different areas. I took it to the dealer, then they had the Southeast Rep. look at it..he said that I had taken a buffer to it....wrong. Then he said they couldn't repaint it...he asked me what I was going to do..I put a sign in the rear window, saying Look at my paint job, new truck. I contacted our BBB and then the the Consumer area at our State Capitol. After a few weeks a rep called me and said they would paint on half of it....I took it to the dealers, they painted all of it for me. I knew they had a problem with acid rain at the factory because I only live about a 1/4 mile from there. They weren't going to fool me, they cover the hoods etc. with paper now...plus they have built sheds to keep all the new cars and trucks under. My suggestion....call the BBB and put in a complaint. The dealer should honor repairs, etc. They can always make their money back from the in the long run....
__________________

__________________
Mark and Linda is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



» Virginia Campgrounds

Reviews provided by




ForestRiverForums.com is not in any way associated with Forest River, Inc. or its associated RV manufacturing divisions.


Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:50 AM.