Recreational vehicle manufacturer Winnebago did not violate consumer protection laws through its warranty with a Colorado couple, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit ruled on Wednesday.

“Winnebago did not breach the warranty because the Platts failed to provide it with an opportunity to perform repairs,” wrote Senior Judge Stephanie K. Seymour for the circuit panel.

Deborah Ann Platt and Dallas Vaughn Platt bought a Winnebago Era RV in 2016, but needed to bring it to a Camping World service center in Golden seven times for warranty-covered repairs. The defects included “a loud squeaky noise, an inoperable GPS and furnace, and screens falling off the windows,” according to records. The 12-month warranty required that an owner bring their vehicle to an authorized dealer and then to the company itself before resorting to legal action. The Platts continued to need repairs and scheduled an appointment with Winnebago in Forest City, Iowa.

However, the couple canceled the appointment and sued the company for breaches of federal and state law, including the Colorado Consumer Protection Act. Despite the company’s assurance that it would fix all outstanding defects at no cost to the Platts, the couple claimed they had “lost faith” in Winnebago.

Under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, consumers are allowed to sue companies that fail to comply with a warranty. The Platts argued that bringing the RV to the Golden service center on multiple occasions therefore gave Winnebago the opportunity to correct the problems, but failure to do so violated the terms.

“The facts of this case plainly show that, while the Platts completed step one of the limited warranty,” wrote Seymour, referring to the work that Camping World performed, “they stopped short of completing step two,” which was to permit Winnebago to address the defects in Forest City.

The circuit court concluded that the Platts were attempting to treat Camping World and Winnebago as the same entity, which the warranty did not support.

“If we were to accept the Platts’ reading of the warranty, the two steps of the warranty process would collapse into one,” Seymour explained.

Despite the plaintiffs’ contention that they had not received a copy of their limited warranty and there was no “meeting of the minds” that enabled both buyer and seller to understand it, Colorado law provides that “in the absence of fraud or concealment, a party signing a contract without reading it cannot deny knowledge of its contents and is bound by what she [or he] signed.” 

The 10th Circuit also dismissed the Platts’ claim of Colorado consumer protection violations. The plaintiffs contended that the promotional brochures that described the RV as a “pure joy” with “legendary construction standards” were a deceptive marketing practice. In her opinion, Seymour said that Winnebago did not hide any information about the warranty and the company made an effort to fix the Platts’ vehicle, but for the couple’s own cancellation.

The case is Platt v. Winnebago Industries Inc.