Issue # 99-2

Claimant: Danny and Mary Lou Biddle

Manufacturer: Monaco

Background:

As unbelievable as it may seem, the printout shown above is a single-spaced itemized list of the repairs done to our motor home. Here is our saga:

In August of 1993, we ordered a 1994 Monaco Dynasty Baron, 38 feet long. It is fortunate we live just 55 miles away from the manufacturer's factory because we have had to take it back for repairs 45 times. That doesn't include the many times we have needed repairs at other facilities when we broke down on the road.

On our first extended trip to the West Coast in December of 1993, we experienced numerous problems with the generator, alternator/regulator, inverter, and other items. We went directly to the factory upon return from the trip to get them fixed.

Our second trip was in February of 1994 and, on that short trip of 125 miles, we had wheel bearing problems and repeats of some of the same problems we had on our previous trip. We returned the coach to the factory for more repairs.

Our next trip started several days after getting our motor home back from the factory. We had the same problem with the wheel bearings. After calling the factory, we got the okay to have the work done at a truck repair facility. We were there for seven hours.

These were the beginnings of five years of literal hell with this motor home.

In the first year of ownership we made 17 trips to the factory. We put almost two thousand miles on the motor home just taking trips there for repairs. Monaco had possession of it for 80 days or 22% of the time that we owned it. The list of problems was long and many of them were worked on numerous times. Those that were worked on more than once included the leveling jack system, furnace, generator, compartment doors, screen and entry doors, engine, batteries, air conditioning, 12 volt wiring system, inverter, alternator, brakes, awning, taillights, dash heat, oil leaks, windshield wipers, entry step, and chips and cracks in the fiberglass exterior. The items that were worked on once include the water heater, ignition switch, leaking roof, rear view camera, antenna, transmission, CO detector, radiator, steering, leaking skylights, transmission cooler, and the LP tank fill valve.

We also had the entire driver and passenger sides of the coach replaced due to delamination. During this replacement process the windows were installed incorrectly. At a later date, they all had to be taken out and reinstalled because they leaked or rattled.

During 1995, we made 13 trips to the factory and Monaco kept the coach for 65 days. We had continuous problems with the inverter, jacks, furnace, generator, screen and entry doors, entry step, water heater, taillights, brakes, batteries, awning, windshield wipers, windows, CO detector, compartment doors and fiberglass cracks. Our new problems included wallpaper coming off, microwave switch, noise coming from the front axle, corroded front head light plugs, coolant light staying on, and broken wheel well liners. The passenger's side was again replaced due to continued delamination and cracking of the fiberglass exterior.

In September of 1995, we sent correspondence to the lienholder of the motor home and inquired about stopping payments due to all the problems that we were having. We sent copies of the letters to Monaco and our dealer. We also decided to attend the Monaco Rally. Upon arrival, we spoke with the owner of the dealership we had purchased the coach from, Robert Ettelman, and he said that he would speak with Kay Toolson, the C.E.O. of Monaco, to find a solution to our problem. Enoch Hutchcraft, of Monaco, came to inspect the motor home. After examining it and pointing out that there were indeed some problems, rather than giving us assurances, he threatened us that if we didn't continue to make payments it would serve only to ruin our credit. Because of these threats, we continued to make payments and allowed Monaco the opportunity to remedy the many defects.

The next day we met again with Robert Ettelman and he informed us that Kay Toolson had agreed that Monaco would replace the motor home. He gave us the option of doing it immediately or within the next year conditional on the fact that we had to immediately leave and take the coach in for the necessary repairs. We left the rally the first day and returned to the factory. Two weeks later, after seeing our motor home, we realized that the problems had not been corrected. We called our dealer to request a new motor home. We even completed and mailed an order sheet to him with the options and colors we wanted. Upon receipt of it, he called to inform us that Monaco had withdrawn the offer and that Monaco believed they could repair our motor home. It was then that we realized that Monaco had probably made the offer to us at the rally just to get us to leave so that we wouldn't tell others about our plight.

We sent letters and completed complaint forms to the Office of the Attorney General of the State of Indiana.

In January and February of 1996, we attempted to travel to the western part of the United States. The first night out with the temperatures in the teens, there were problems with the batteries that made the furnace inoperable. It was a cold night. The next day the generator became inoperable so we had to stop for repairs. Two days later the alternator/regulator became inoperable. It was a Saturday and we couldn't reach anyone at Monaco so we had a local repair shop do a temporary fix to get us back on the road. On Monday, we contacted Monaco who shipped us a new alternator and on Tuesday we had it installed. On Friday, we left to return home when one of the window awnings started extending to its full open position and then snap back in. Unlike the large awning it had no arms and no way to fasten or tape it. Mary Lou rode from New Mexico to Indiana, kneeling on the couch with her arm extended through an open window and screen, holding the awning in place against the side of the motor home. It was a long, cold, and uncomfortable ride home for Mary Lou. A week or so later we took the motor home back to the factory for repairs again.

After getting the coach back from the factory we still had problems with the furnace. We took it back for more repairs. After another return of the motor home and the furnace still not working we wrote a letter to Kay Toolson of Monaco. In response, he sent a technician to our home to finally repair the furnace properly.

In July, we received a letter from Enoch Hutchcraft that we think was in response to the Attorney General's inquiry. In it was an offer of $5000 towards any new Monaco product. Even with our trade-in this would mean paying an extra $30,000 to $40,000 for a new coach. In the letter we had sent to the Attorney General's office, we mentioned that we might have to hire an attorney to sue Monaco. We also posed the question that "if Monaco is convinced that they have all the problems solved, then why shouldn't they be willing to issue us some type of extended warranty or goodwill gesture?" Hutchcraft wrote in response that Monaco would be willing to "offer copious quantities of goodwill… to buffer Mr. Biddle against any significant financial burden that relates to his Monaco motor home for years to come." This statement was qualified with the words "we do not have a crystal ball, we cannot state what action we will take in the future." In order to take advantage of this offer from Monaco they wanted us to sign a "hold harmless" type of release where we would agree not to sue. There was also a denial of the offer Mr. Eddelman had made to us from Mr. Toolson for a new motor home. Mr. Toolson had no recollection of that promise. We rejected the offer.

In August, we wrote again to Mr. Toolson notifying him of additional problems. We were put in touch with Ron Diller who was then Monaco's service manager. Over the next three months, while the coach was back at the factory for another twenty-two days of repairs, we negotiated an agreement. Relying on the representations of Ron Diller, I signed an agreement that stated I would release and hold Monaco Corporation harmless from all causes of actions, suits, and claims in exchange for goodwill repairs to our motor home. This included the roof, taillight system, refrigerator and LP system, compartment leaks, body damage, inverter and alternator/regulator malfunctions. Mary Lou refused to sign the agreement.

On the first trip taken after the agreement was signed we had to pull into a fuel station when we heard a terrible screeching noise and smoke began to roll out from underneath the coach. It was determined that the alternator had frozen up and malfunctioned. Fortunately, Monaco had provided us with a spare alternator.

In November, we had to replace the transmission cooler for the third time. After the repair shop determined that the cooler was no good I called Monaco about covering the costs under the warranty. They refused and said the letter I had signed did not pertain to this repair. I then asked which transmission cooler was in the coach so that I could order a new one. They admitted that they didn't know. I obtained the work order from my file to check the back of it where they normally wrote down the parts used in the job. It was blank. Monaco told us to pull the old cooler out and look for the part number. There wasn't one. We decided to have it rebuilt. The repair shop indicated to us that it was much older than two years old and the rebuild would not include any warranty. Unfortunately, it leaked after reinstallation so we ordered a new one that that had to be reconstructed to fit in our motor home. I turned the bill into our extended warranty company who paid a portion of it and we had to pay the balance.

In 1997, we made six trips to Monaco for repairs. It was in the factory shop for 51 days. Additionally, the motor home broke down three times on trips and had to be taken into other repair shops.

In January of 1998, we took the motor home back to the factory for the final time. The service underwriter, who was in charge of our coach at the time, counseled us in regards to the motor home. She indicated that she couldn't believe what we had been through with our motor home. She told us that she would do everything to our coach that she could possibly do. She suggested that if this didn't work that we would have no alternative but to sue. She also told us that when we got the coach back from the factory there would be some information for us under the mattress. What we found was a continuous feed; single-spaced computer printout of the repair history of our motor home at the factory. The photograph at the beginning of this story shows me standing on top of the motor home with this report unfolded.

In March, we experienced another big problem. The charge air cooler developed a leak and we lost all power. We called Monaco to ask assistance with the repairs and again they refused, saying it wasn't covered in the agreement. The extended warranty company also refused to pay for the repair. We not only missed our vacation but had a $2000 repair bill and another $1000 in expenses for the five days we waited for the repairs to be made.

Since March, we have had to cancel two trips because the furnace would not work. We have had the motor home towed once. We have had a new pac-brake put on, the head gasket/head replaced, and the front gasket/engine cover replaced. The motor home batteries, which were supposedly replaced in January of 1998 by Monaco will not hold a charge longer than eight hours. The brakes have seized up, the taillights work intermittently, the blower motor/heat controls no longer work, the step only works periodically, and there is delamination on the side of the motor home that has already been replaced twice. There are stains on the ceiling from the leaks that Monaco was supposed to repair. We still cannot operate the generator if more than the two air conditioners are on at once.

We would like to sell this motor home but we feel that we have an obligation to a potential buyer to tell them about the problems, if we are asked. We would like to trade it in on a new one but the trade value of our motor home and $100,000 cash is not an economically feasible exchange. We would like to get our motor home repaired so that it will give us years of service but, with all we have been through the last five years, what might happen over the next five?

We have lost all faith in this motor home and the possibility that it can be repaired. Monaco has discontinued service and that is a breach of the contract. We have hired an attorney and are presently in litigation. Monaco's attorneys are hanging their hat on the agreement that I signed in respect to no litigation with continued service. My wife and I have made the decision that, win or lose, we will see this through - even if Monaco plans to drag it out in hopes that we will drop the case.

Danny and Mary Lou Biddle, Indiana - 1/99

Claimant's Request for Remuneration:

Replacement of our motorhome with a comparable one that is new with no additional cost to us. If they don't want to supply us with a new motorhome then we request our money back including all interest paid and out of pocket costs and repairs. We will also request our costs incurred for motel stays while waiting for the coach to be repaired when it broke down on the road and for recovery of all attorney fees.

Respondent's Statement:

No statement to date.

UPDATE:

I met with our attorney today and found out that Monaco has asked the court for a Summary Judgement based on two factors. Their first claim is that the statute of limitations have expired for me to bring suit against them. The Indiana statute says filing must take place in four years and I filed 4 years and four months after purchase. Their second claim is that I signed an agreement releasing them of any liability and consequently gave up my rights to any and all litigation. They submitted several Indiana cases in regards to the statute of limitations where the court acted in their favor. We will continue to see this thing through until the judge makes a decision to throw it out or allows the case to go to a jury trial.

Danny and Mary Lou Biddle, Indiana - 2/99

Official Court of Public Opinion Ballot