By Ron Burdge
On January 6 a Federal judge in California issued a stinging rebuke to Thor Motor Coach while denying Thor‘s motion to have an RV breach of warranty lawsuit transferred to Indiana.
The judge noted that Thor had for years been using warranty terms that were unenforceable in California, saying, “that scheme is contrary to California public policy and the court should not condone or encourage it.” The Federal Court pointed out how Thor was using a warranty that said people would not have a right to a jury trial, which Thor had known for years was contrary to California law. In California a jury trial is guaranteed for RV warranty cases.
The Court went on to point out Thor’s warranty also said warranty claim lawsuits had to be filed in Indiana, when doing that would actually take away rights guaranteed to California RV buyers by California law. “Yet TMC continued to include those provisions in its warranty agreements” the Federal judge said in condemning the practice and refused to transfer the case out of the California court.
As an enticement to get the California Federal Judge to transfer the case to Indiana, Thor had said it was willing to not enforce those provisions in the Indiana court, but the judge didn’t accept that. That ploy has worked before in some California courts, but not in the courtroom of Federal Judge Rita Linn in the California Northern District federal courtroom in the case of Julio Gorga v. Thor Motor Coach, Case No. 23-cf-03603-RFL, N.D. Calif.
Judge Linn noted that Thor had lost that battle the year before in a different California Federal Court, where Federal Court Judge James Lorenz denied the same motion by Thor.
In January 2023, a Federal judge noted that “Thor Motor states that it knowingly presents agreements to California consumers containing clauses that are prohibited under California law.” Judge Lorenz went on to say that Thor’s use of the prohibited terms could cause some California consumers to follow Thor’s instructions and file their case in Indiana and later find out that by doing so they lost the rights that California law guaranteed them when they bought their new Thor RV.
A scheme, judge says
The judge called Thor’s practice a “scheme” that was contrary to California public policy as he refused to allow Thor to have the case transferred out of his court, noting that the enforcement of a clause “drafted in bad faith would be condoning, or at least not discouraging, an illegal scheme….” That January 13, 2023 case was Waryck v. Thor Motor Coach, 2023 WL 3794002, S.D. Calif.
Lawyers call these kind of clauses “in terrorem” clauses. It’s when a company puts in a term that they know is not enforceable just so people will see it and think it is enforceable, and then not even fight it. It’s a way of scaring people into doing something they don’t really have to do. Moral of the story? Just because it’s in writing does not mean you are always stuck with it.
Read the court document, case 22-cv-1096-L-MDD
RELATED: Watch attorney Steve Lehto’s video about RV warranties in other states that are similar to the one in the case above.
RELATED: McMillan Law Group Wins California Lemon Law Case Against Thor Motor Coach.
RELATED: On their YouTube channel, the folks at Endless RVing offer their thoughts on our article above.
Ron Burdge is an RV Lemon Law attorney based in Ohio. He is a longtime RVtravel.com advertiser and contributing writer. He can reached through RVlemonLaw.com or at 888-331-6422.
##RVT1143b
Hope Thor loses. Don’t own one, don’t want one. Please report the final outcome.
I hope the customer prevails and this sets a precedent for future RV warranty cases. It’s probably the only way the industry can be motivated to change their practices.
Though it is a warranty case. The crime is committed at the purchase. if you haven’t already, watch the video attached. The purchase paperwork is disgusting.
Every Thor that I have seen in my search for a updated unit is a total mess so now when I come across one I don’t even bother to look at them. Don’t want to spend more on repair then to buy the unit. These are 2018 and newer units too. Just junk!
Hooray for Judge Linn!!
You will be sore if you buy a Thor.
Hey look! Some good news out of California. Seriously, just another article that convinces me I’ll never buy a new RV. Who wants a warranty that you will have to use, but may be ineffective.
You don’t have to buy new. What makes you think that used RV/TT/ABC and Fiver doesn’t fall into this warranty issue and if it was fixed, corrected or addressed? Sure, some will say it will save you $$$$ but what happens when the warranty will not cover claim due some technical wording in the warranty? Like Thors!
Unfortunately, The rest of the country won’t follow suit and this will be a regional, short lived, victory. These industries bought the politicians long ago. As we’ve all learned recently, the money flows right up to the bench as well. It is so clearly a scheme, a FACT that that no one can deny. So how has it worked for so long? The corporations run the country, not the criminals we elect, they are just an illegal banking system in the middle. This issue is a microcosm of the heart of our problem.
You can’t buy ANY type of vehicle from a dealership without waiving your right to a jury. Any dispute must be resolved through mediation, with the mediator of the DEALERSHIP’S choosing!!
Thank you, Ron! Bad Thor, bad, bad, bad Thor! 🙁 I would like to see a forum established somewhere, anywhere where Thor owners post how happy they are with their rig. All I have ever heard or read bashes Thor and/or their products. Surely some (?) are at least satisfied or better, I suppose. 🤔
In this newsletter, Tony Barthel has been giving Keystone kudos for the many improvements coming from their Innovation Lab. And my sister loves their 2015 Keystone Outback TT, if that’s a positive. Thor also owns DRV and Airstream, but there don’t seem to be a lot of online complaints about Airstreams and Mobile Suites, etc. Of course, those two companies only produce very high-end RVs, so quality construction should be implied!
Thor Motor Coach is NOT Thor Industries which owns many RV manufacturers. Not the same management or ownership, just a similar name.
According to Thor Industries website, Thor Motor Coach is a subsidiary of Thor Industries.
Thank you, Ron, for a great article!
While I don’t always agree with what California comes up with, valid consumer protections like this are a feather in their cap and even more important considering the junk product these companies knowingly push out their doors with terms attached to avoid the liabilities that should come with such practices.
Thor is simply a scheme to deprive customers of their money and their rights.
Maybe that should become Thor’s new Tag Line.
I cannot think of another industry where companies intend to deceive their customers as much as Thor and other manufacturers likely do. Nice to see the consumer have a minor victory vs the companies that are INTENTIONALLY ripping us off. Looking forward to the final outcome of this story.
Tough to read that article and not smile. Consumer protections in the RV industry through the courts may yield some needed changes long term for the same, not through the courts.
I don’t see any mention of sanctions against Thor, by the California Courts, for the practice of “ in terrorem.” Why?
Wonder if it is time to organize some type of class action lawsuit to go nationally to stop the ‘transfer to Indiana courts’ clause being included in the purchase agreements? After watching the video last week am planning to sign ‘ I am not signing this’ at our next purchase when they ask for our signatures on those warranty notices and see how that goes…
Instead of fines, why not prison terms instead. Long prison terms.
That’s exactly what we need to do, across all industry.
Ron and I finally agree on something!!!
Usually officers of a Corporation are protected under the “Corporate Veil.” To an extent, that is necessary or no one would run large corporations due to personal risk. But when it is clear that they are part of a scheme to intentionally harm buyers rights, then they should be open to personal civil, or even criminal, consequences.
That’s why arbitration and home state advantage is in their contracts. They are afraid of the consequences of what they do given a fair trial by an impartial jury.
My opinion, anyway.
Because, as a country, we’ve decided that a guy in a hoodie who robs a person deserves jail time, but a guy in a suit and tie who robs thousands of people deserves a slap on the wrist.
slapping is no longer tolerated.
Thor has had a terrible reputation for years, even before they bought up some of their competitors. Why anybody would consider buying anything under their corporate umbrella is unthinkable to me. They have ruined the reputation of previously respectable products. Potential buyers need to do their homework first.
“Thor Motor states that it knowingly presents agreements to California consumers containing clauses that are prohibited under California law.”
The proper response to this is to declare the entire sales contract null and void so the customer can return the RV for a FULL REFUND. That would put an end to companies knowingly deceiving customers. Sales contracts would be changed immediately.
Good morning, fellow RV enthusiasts!
Let’s dive into the intriguing world of recreational vehicles (RVs). While emotions and the allure of a richer life and unforgettable experiences often drive RV purchases, let’s not overlook the financial aspect. It’s true that data analysis plays a pivotal role in selecting the right RV, and rational decision-making is essential.
However, here’s the twist: RV manufacturers and sellers are well aware of this emotional connection. They sometimes don the cloak of opportunism, viewing customers as easy prey to be squeezed for every penny. 🦅
Thank you, Ron! 🙂 Will this decision be appealed? Can it be appealed? Thoughts? Thank you! 🙂
It could be appealed but probably will not
After Lehtos video last week I would be interested in knowing what other states have similar wording to what CA has.