Facts

In February 2007, plaintiffs Michael and Wendy Goode purchased a new Hunter 45-foot yacht from defendant Hunter Marine's authorized dealer, Nautical Enterprises Inc. ("NEI"). Plaintiff hired NEI to commission the yacht, which included the installation of various after-market components requested by plaintiffs.

On June 6, 2007, Plaintiffs took possession of the yacht, which came with Hunter's one-year limited warranty that covered parts manufactured by Hunter. The yacht also came with the express warranties provided by the manufacturers of the various parts and components that were installed on the yacht but not manufactured by Hunter. NEI also provided its own warranty, which covered parts and components that it installed as part of the commissioning process. Shortly thereafter, Plaintiffs claimed that they experienced a number of problems with the yacht, including but not limited to water leaks in the plumbing system, wiring problems, and difficult steering.

Starting in July 2007, plaintiff Michael Goode sent emails complaining of many problems to NEI, which was also Hunter's authorized service agent under its warranty. Over the following eight months, NEI sent technicians to the yacht to make the repairs. Many of the problems were rectified; Plaintiff alleges other problems were not repaired. By the end of January 2008, the relationship between plaintiff Michael Goode and NEI became strained. Michael felt that his complaints were not being properly addressed. NEI thought Michael was asking for more than what the warranties provided.

In June 2008, Plaintiffs demanded that Hunter and NEI repurchase or replace the yacht under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. Hunter and NEI declined, asking instead that they it be allowed access to the yacht to make repairs. Plaintiffs did not allow repairs to be made, instead opting to file suit in July 2009.

The complaint filed by the first attorney retained by Plaintiffs alleged 11 causes of actions and named Hunter, NEI and various employees of NEI and Hunter as defendants.

NEI filed for bankruptcy and never appeared in the action. Hunter filed a motion for summary adjudication seeking to dismiss most of Plaintiff's causes of action. After the motion was filed, Plaintiffs' second attorney filed a motion to amend the complaint to include, among other things, a claim for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability. The motion was denied as untimely based on the pending motion for summary adjudication. Thereafter, Plaintiffs' second attorney voluntarily dismissed all causes of action except the breach of express warranty under Song-Beverly.

In July 2011, Plaintiffs filed a motion in camera to be relieved of counsel, which was granted. Shortly thereafter, Plaintiffs retained the services of William E. Waddell to try the case. The trial date, which had been set for Aug. 29, 2011, was continued to Jan. 17, 2012.

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiffs claimed that the yacht had one or more substantial defects covered under Hunter's warranty, and that Hunter, through its authorized repair facility, NEI, had failed to repair the defects after a reasonable number of repair attempts.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS:
Hunter claimed that most of Plaintiffs' warranty claims were not covered because they related to alleged defects that did not involved parts manufactured by Hunter or resulted from Plaintiffs' failure to perform regular and routine maintenance on the yacht. To the extent that any covered parts were defective in workmanship or material, Hunter claimed that they were promptly repaired within a reasonable number of repair attempts. Hunter alleged that it did not have an opportunity to repair certain alleged defects because Plaintiffs denied access to the yacht.

Settlement Discussions

The parties participated in court appointed mediation, private mediation and a pre-trial settlement conference. The lowest demand made by Plaintiffs was $950,000. The highest offer made by Defendant was $50,000.

Damages

Under the Song-Beverly Act, Plaintiffs sought to return the yacht to Hunter and be refunded the purchase price of $402,000. Plaintiffs also sought $140,000 in consequential damages, $1,025,000 as a civil penalty permitted under the Song Beverly Act, attorney fees and costs.

Result

The jury returned a unanimous verdict for Hunter on a seven-question special verdict form. The jury found that the yacht had one or more defects covered by Hunter's warranty that substantially impaired the use, value, or safety of the yacht, but that Hunter did not fail to conform the yacht to its warranty after a reasonable number of repair opportunities under the Song-Beverly consumer warranty act. The court awarded Hunter its costs in the amount of $23,103.

Other Information

Plaintiffs' motion for new trial, judgment notwithstanding the verdict and to tax costs were all denied on March 20, 2012. FILING DATE: July 29, 2009.

Deliberation

one hour

Length

nine days