FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

FEBRUARY 22, 2006

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

 [DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

-------------------------------------------

No. 04-16575

Non-Argument Calendar

--------------------------------------------

D.C. Docket No. 04-00040-CV-TWT-1

RICHARD BAILEY,

 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

versus

MONACO COACH CORPORATION,

 Defendant-Appellee. 

----------------------------------------------------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Georgia 

----------------------------------------------------------------

(February 22, 2006)

Before EDMONDSON, Chief Judge, ANDERSON and MARCUS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:
 While the MMWA, (15 U.S.C. § 2301(7)), gives consumers a private right of action against

1

warrantors for breach of implied warranty, implied warranty claims under the MMWA arise out of

and are defined by state law. Id. Bailey purchased the motorhome from a dealer and not directly

from Monaco. No privity exists between Bailey and Monaco. Under Florida law, privity of contract

is an essential element of a claim for breach of implied warranty. See Mesa v. BMW of North

America, LLC, 904 So.2d 450, 458 (Fla.App. 2005) (“Under Florida law, a plaintiff cannot recover

economic losses for breach ofimplied warranty in the absence of privity;)” Baker v. Danek Medical,

35 F.Supp. 2d 875, 878 (N.D. Fla. 1998); Kramer v. Piper Aircraft Corp., 520 So.2d 37, 38 (Fla.

1988).

2

Plaintiff-Appellant Richard Bailey appeals the grant of summary judgment

in favor or Defendant-Appellee Monaco Coach Corporation (“Monaco”) in

Bailey’s suit for breach of warranty under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act

(“MMWA”), 15 U.S.C. § 230l, et seq. No reversible error has been shown; we

affirm.

Bailey purchased a motor home manufactured by Monaco which he claimed

was beset by many defects which remained unrepaired after Bailey afforded

Monaco sufficient opportunity to correct the defects. The district court

considered fully Bailey’s claims and concluded that Bailey -- who was represented

by trial counsel but proceeds pro se on appeal -- (i) presented no evidence that

Monaco failed to repair any defect that timely was brought to Monaco’s attention

and was within the terms of the express Limited Warranty; and (ii) because Bailey

was not in privity of contract with Monaco, a claim for breach of implied warranty

fails as a matter of Florida law.1
3

We see no error in the district court’s conclusions. About Bailey’s claims

that Monaco breached its limited written warranty, no genuine issue of material

fact exists because (i) a number of the alleged defects were excluded expressly by

the terms of Monaco’s limited warranty; (ii) Bailey admitted that certain claimed

defects were repaired; (iii) Monaco was not given reasonable notice of certain

defects; and (iv) Bailey failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish that

certain problems constituted defects. Absent sufficient evidence to raise a triable

issue that Monaco failed to repair a covered defect that was brought appropriately

to its attention, Bailey could show no breach of express warranty. About Bailey’s

claim that Monaco breached implied warranties, the absence of privity between

Bailey and Monaco is dispositive: Bailey’s claim of breach of implied warranty

fails as a matter of law.

AFFIRMED.