gas switch on the range hard to light the over the air and showing cogs toilet valve leaks microwave installed crooked t v installed crooked batteries do not hold charge  lack holding tank leaks and there were also additional defects that were discovered at a later date but they were not aware of those defects at the time of the filing of the lawsuit and i did miss  ok so that's one that had to be repaired three or more times yes and so the nd time that that was subject to repair was on the nd repair repaired under its warranty it sounded this right ok that's so we're now we're just with the door lock i'm sorry i think i misunderstood you your honor the records show that d r then we have that you are saying the door unlocked and the are intended yes your own and i want to the last item is the door hold missing screw on overhead compartment it's basically the overhead compartment they won't stay closed so this case is about the door lock the screw and the air antenna no this case is about  not repaired in a reasonable amount so this was can i ask you a question on that that statement because that's one thing that i had a point of confusion about legally has has our case law or indiana case law perhaps more specifically explained that the way to approach warranty claims is in that kind of aggregate way that you just summarized i had always thought that the way to do it was to look at it more component by component where we were at the beginning of the argument and then you know measure whether the warranties bit here too there were enough opportunities to repair it but but that it's it's not you can't state a warranty claim by coming in and saying well over the course of time we've presented two hundred dollars items for repair that a reasonable if there if defects are not repaired within a reasonable amount of time or a reasonable number of tugs and but essentially just like you know is what i'm trying to ask is doesn't that i think you're right about the standard but isn't the measure of whether the standard is it here to more on a component by component basis as a post i don't think so because i think that if you're looking at an r instance it's taken into the repair shop and it's there for the full year old warranty period obviously the purpose of that warrants he has not  rd because the consumers haven't had news of the r v during the warranty period but some of those defects they will have been subject to repair on one occasion so i think you have to look at the overall evidence showed that a manufacturer held a vehicle to prevent the you know the buyer the owners here the zilla stroh's from really ever realizing any use of it that that would certainly be a  problem that way but where that's not the that's not the fact pattern right the fact pattern here is more that there has been a ton of problems with this particular vehicle and misters elsewhere in particular seems to have been quite diligent  preparing lists and presenting it for the vehicle for repair and the like i'm sorry i'm having a hard time hearing you i heard the end part but i missed the beginning that i get my only question is what can you point us to a to a case in indiana along the northern ne ne earth federal court that analyzes the warranty issues along the lines that you summed up in answering judge rovers question what's the best case of indiana law adopting that analytical approach i think that the court did a good job of analyzing things in the paid case and that's the northern district case it's cited in the particular i have to say as well as i have a hard time holding the defense accountable for the st fifty days or so before the plaintiffs were ready to pick up the th wheel here but that still lea you your clients without the use of this for the roughly six months out of the st ten or eleven they own the vehicle is there what is the evidence tell us about really need this until the till january so it's like free storage for us if it's at the dealer so i don't think when the argue with that plan that they ever gave the impression there's no evidence of that but it was ok too for them to have it as long as they like i mean for the st repair work we're talking about like the main time of our being the other season that's it's times they the repairs still weren't even performs and the r v wasn't even returned to them for more than two months after that and i ask you to address one particular point in the defense brief  four page seven says that as between these two visits to plaza at the top the only repeat item was an adjustment to an over and over the door the other from apart from if there were two entirely separate troubles me about this case ms wells obviously we've got the matthews opinion where we focus on numbers of attempts to repair i don't think that's the only standard either under any analog or  or under matthews itself but in the time is important but an awful lot of these repairs are frankly pretty miners stuff they shouldn't be wrong they ought to be fixed very easily bottom floor leaving no odor that makes this completely as you think and usable for recreational purposes but it's not clear that the r v ever got a chance to actually try to fix that because of this conversation that mr zale straight had my question i guess is what is the plaintiff's theory what is your evidence show about that leak is it your theory that it was defective that the tank was defective from the time of the original delivery from the factory or that it was damaged by plaza in an attempt to repair  conversations after the reels ringback maintenance repair i think that's very important as well because a warranty it guarantees that defects are going to be fixed here the representative d r v said it was the only evidence before the court that he could not guarantee the repairs would be lasting and that they'd fix the problem but aren't they entitled to at least one  well if you can't even guarantee and and show that the problem can even be fixed or you don't know right i mean who knows whether there can be fixed or not that would leave the manufacturer in the position of saying we can't fix it here's your money back or we can we think we did get it fixed why is where are they in total to at least give it a try i think they did get a try and i apologize i give another impression during the st three pair of opportunity at plaza our feet there was a report that the holding tank the black holding tank leaks and that the tank was hard to close  found or what i think it's clear in these types of cases that the measure of damages is the difference that time and place of acceptance between the value of give you a minute on rebuttal but we will turn to mr gasper thank you your honor and may please the court i'll begin there at at the black tank because there is no evidence in the record that the black tank was ever submitted to for repair what the record shows is that the plaintiffs complained that their black tank valve was difficult to close the plaza or view when they dropped it off in september of two thousand and seventeen the repair records of plows r v and this is on the record at documentary two thousand eight hundred and twelve dollars of the rd page of that repair order indicate it's an owner issue as far as r v goes through the issues and make repairs they designate retail or warranty as between who who is responsible for the  through an owner's improper flushing improper washing or use of an improper product in the black tank and there repair was to clean that residue and return the r tank and during that act st deposition and this is mr simmons he testified that at the time he inspected the r v which is well after the black tank leak that the black tank leaks had been fixed all right gabriel's maintenance fix the issue with with the leak he also noted the crack and i specifically asked him do you know the cause of the leak and he said no the crack issue on the flange is an unrelated part of the black tank valve that didn't result in the leak in the plan of haven't identified any evidence to suggest that the black tank leak was caused anything other than basically cleaning up the valve is what gabriel maintenance record shows you know no different than what he did which equally suggested that the planners continued to improperly use the black tank as it does a defect on the part of d r v mr gasper can i ask you a question about something that caught my attention in mr zale stroh's declaration that he submitted after his deposition there's a passage in that declaration where he talks about a  conversation that he had with a salesperson at the bradley bourbon a dealership and that salesperson told him that before picked up the r v that the dealership used it as a cannibalizing vehicle that they used it as an r v to go in and grab different parts out of to put in other r v s was i did not see that allegation in the complaint but my question is what evidence is there in the discovery record about the r v being used like that before this illustrates took possession of it from the dealership i think the  t submitted in response to summary judgment it's the evidence of it and ultimately you know that type of issue is more of a breach of contract issue between mr sylvester and the dealer right if you go to wal mart to buy a bike and the bike you buy doesn't have the water bottle because wal mart put the water bottle someone bike on to another one you go back to wal mart and say hey you didn't give me the water bottle well maybe that isn't so your your answer is it's not developed in the evidence it what's not developed in the evidence the only reason i asked the question is because the warranty does have a workmanship guarantee and in some hypothetical case where evidence were developed to show that that to be true that a vehicle truly deal with them but that they weren't the only i misspoke a little bit your honor because there is one other place in the record where the planets brought this up and that is in their letter to bradley bourbonnais  about the relationship between the the and the dealers including those authorized who are warranty repairs you know i was a little surprised to see you disclaiming responsibility for the work  authorized service dealers on warrants were i understand you don't control them but you did do delegate to them the the warranty responsibilities and does does your defense depend  this kind of overriding delegate to write because i figured look you're talking here about folks who thought they bought a brand new vehicle they can't use it during the summer they can't use it during the fall they can't use it for about six months even giving you guys credit for the delay because it's still six months or so that they use it in the st ten or so that they're yeah i agree that we delegate to them but you know i can address the time out of service here and and you know really time out of service as a concept we most often see and automobile cases because it's pretty easy to make two assumptions of an automobile when it's at a shop one is that it's got a problem if it's in there for any period of days it's got a problem that that renders it incapable of being used and two is if it wasn't at the shop it would be used ok that the same assumptions can't be made in an r v case because our r v s spend the vast majority of their life not being used not in service there's nothing in this record to establish that the plaintiff's r v was actually out of service that they were they were going to use it at any particular time but had to cancel the  trip and there's nothing in the record to demonstrate that the issues that they had with the r v that were present at the plaza r v prevented them from using it and facts before they presented it to plaza r v in june they went camping with it three different times i mean a cricket microwave and a cricket t v doesn't prohibit you from from camping in your r v and so those same kind of basic assumptions we haven't a carcase that if it's at the shop it's out of service just doesn't fly here the planet has to present evidence that you know one they were someone's not using their r v they'll drop it off in the pick it up at the you know end of the winter and they don't care when repairs are being made it would be like you know having a bathroom remodel done on your summer home in the middle of winter if you're not using it you know your bathroom isn't out of service have cleaned up that is needed to the insulation in the underbelly and in the perhaps replacement of the underbelly to clean up the black tank leak there may be an adjustment that could be made to a car dealership a r v dealership has the luxury of being able to prioritize their repairs and there's nothing in the record to suggest that had they told the dealership hey we need this back in october that it couldn't have been done but but when you drop your v off you say you don't need it till the st of the year and then the dealership complies with that and gets it back to you before christmas it's tough to then argue that this r v was out of service for that period of time the  in the letter that was sent in the middle of those repairs that that allegedly shows that they were upset with the time out of service i think number one most notably if they were upset with the time out of service of plaza you think the letter would have been addressed the plaza it was the plaintiffs alleged happened at bradley prevented chevrolet it did not complain about the length of time that repairs were currently taken at plaza r v and in fact the record shows that when the planners did pick up the v before christmas to actually put it into storage for a period of time before they they took it out for their trip at the st of the year so there might be anybody trying to resolve this by just giving  if you know the black tank valve again the record it's pretty clear both the deposition testimony of those and the experts that the issue itself is fixture on or the issue would be whether or not those the cleanup would would be covered and  underbelly and put in new insulation and and you know that there's nothing in the record to say that can't be done it would be the cost of repair it would become an interesting issue because plan of sex for aggregated their damages they said based on everything with the survey we have a diminished value of you know x and if we were now only try a single portion of that whether the planets might even be able to get that expert testimony and evidence i think would would be a question  refuse to fix that issue and he said no you know more or less we have a conversation with a customer service agent where is that head got this big problem of sewage and if you guys can't clean it up it's going to be a problem and the representative agreed yeah that would be a problem any any asked over the phone you know can you guarantee that you can fix it and very smartly he said you know i can't guarantee anything we need to check this out before we can make a of kind of cascading multiplying problems with these as far as cascading problems it is pretty typical these are hand built r v s these are not machine built if you were to walk through our assembly facilities you see each line involved craftsman carpenters putting these things together and so it is pretty common unlike the automotive industry that you're going to have warranty claims right you have a hand built product just like if you were to  build yourself a have your self a new home built you know you walk through the builder you create a punch list of issues and after letting the home weather a year in this case in an r v after letting the home you know drive up and down the road and kind of it but yeah you know nothing about the minor issues and only want to which was presented multiple times and that was the overhead cabinet you know the the issues that were actually presented weren't major type issues there were  i question the right line number i think under matthews we're talking more than two i know the indiana lemon law for cars which which i would posit are far more important to society than than r v s it's  for but i think i think for purposes of repair attempts you're looking at at least to repair times we should be given the shot to fix this at least twice before the warranty still of it's essential with or without any consideration of total number and time of service and the judge counters point i don't think there are any cases that really aggregates anything and so i think you have to look at individually because you know if plan of brings  in a d v d player on day one and then day ninety they bring in a leveling jack issue and on day one hundred and twenty they bring in a dish with the overhead compartment it's difficult to say that you know they're for the warranty failed because to do what's in the best interest ultimately of our clients and that is to get these people back camping and in a good situation but you know if you have a situation where you have three or more repair attempts as as any particular issue  you have extensive time out of service that it's truly time out of service you know if you had a roof leak and it was sitting at the dealership for one hundred and twenty dollars days i start to look at that and i'd say man that that that might be problematic here even if there's only one they're in retirement age and they're putting that towards something that is very important to them so i think that in some cases these defective r v cases are even more significant with regards to the black tank there was an argument made that the black remind to remember that d r v would not guarantee it but they could clean out that sewage issue and fix it and then the last thing fundamentally award for like to europeans required to stand behind  and a warranty is supposed to get an r v repaired untimely within the warranty period however if this decision is not reversed to remain ended the duration of warranty repairs will be irrelevant warranty claims consumers will be required to be the intermediary between manufacturers and authorized dealers despite what the warranty says and basically it will make the warranties somewhat well completely worthless such a hole holding would turn more into