Clarifying Effective Warranty Disclaimers and Cure Opportunities Under Indiana Law and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act

Introduction

This commentary examines the Indiana Supreme Court’s decision in Glenn Thomas, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Bernadette O’Malley v. Valpo Motors, Inc. (No. 24S-PL-286, decided May 13, 2025). The case arises from the sale of a used 2007 Dodge Caliber by Valpo Motors to Bernadette O’Malley, later represented by her son-in-law Glenn Thomas after her death. O’Malley purchased the car “as is” under a Buyers Guide that purported to disclaim all warranties, and separately acquired a third-party service contract (“Wynn’s warranty”). When the vehicle soon suffered pervasive mechanical failures, O’Malley sued for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability under Indiana’s adoption of UCC § 2-314 and the federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (the “MMWA”), 15 U.S.C. § 2301 et seq.

The key legal issues were: (1) whether Valpo effectively disclaimed the implied warranty of merchantability by conspicuous “AS IS” language, and (2) whether Valpo was afforded a “reasonable opportunity to cure” its failure to comply, as required by MMWA § 2310(e). The Supreme Court unanimously held that ambiguities in the disclaimer document rendered it ineffective to disclaim the implied warranty, and that genuine fact issues remained on whether Valpo had a reasonable opportunity to cure. The court vacated summary judgment for the dealer, directed partial summary judgment for the buyer on disclaimer, and remanded to determine the cure question—and, if Thomas prevails, to assess damages and attorney’s fees under 15 U.S.C. § 2310(d)(2).

Summary of the Judgment

1. Implied Warranty of Merchantability. Under Indiana Code § 26-1-2-314(1), every sale by a merchant carries an implied warranty that goods are fit for ordinary purposes. UCC § 2-316(2) requires any disclaimer of that implied warranty to be “clear and conspicuous.”

2. Federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. The MMWA supplements state law by giving consumers a federal right of action for breach of written or implied warranties, provided the warrantor is afforded a “reasonable opportunity to cure” any default, per 15 U.S.C. § 2310(e).

3. Disclaimer Documents. Valpo furnished a printed Buyers Guide checking the “AS IS—NO DEALER WARRANTY” box and a Sales Agreement disclaiming all express and implied warranties unless the seller “extends a written warranty or service contract within 90 days.” A separate third-party service contract was sold the same day, and a handwritten note on the Buyers Guide referred to the Wynn’s warranty.

4. Contract Interpretation. Because the Sales Agreement’s conflict clause made it control over the Buyers Guide when their terms varied, the court reviewed the Buyers Guide for a clear disclaimer. The court found ambiguity in (a) the printed invitation to purchase a service contract with implied warranties, and (b) the handwritten Wynn’s-warranty notation. Ambiguous contract terms are construed against the drafter (Valpo), so the implied warranty survived.

5. Opportunity to Cure. MMWA § 2310(e) bars suit for breach of any warranty unless the seller had a reasonable opportunity to cure. The court declined to import a federal-law rule requiring two repair attempts; instead, it held that a single reasonable opportunity—by direct request or notice plus no remedial proposal—suffices. Thomas presented evidence that he notified Valpo of the Car’s defects, offered Valpo a chance to “rectify,” and even rejected a partial refund offer, creating fact issues on cure.

6. Disposition. Summary judgment for Valpo Motors is vacated. The trial court must enter partial summary judgment for Thomas on the disclaimer issue, determine whether Valpo had a reasonable opportunity to cure, and, if Thomas prevails, award damages and reasonable attorneys’ fees under 15 U.S.C. § 2310(d)(2).

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

UCC § 2-314(1), § 2-316(2)–(3): Indiana’s Uniform Commercial Code implies a merchantability warranty, disclaimed only by clear and conspicuous language such as “AS IS.”
Hahn v. Ford Motor Co. (Ind. Ct. App. 1982): Emphasized buyer protection, requiring disclaimers to be conspicuous to avoid unfair surprise.
Town & Country Ford, Inc. v. Busch (Ind. Ct. App. 1999): Confirmed that a disclaimer must “call the buyer’s attention” and be plain.
Universal Auto, LLC v. Murray (Ind. Ct. App. 2020): Held that facilitating a third-party service contract can render a dealer’s disclaimer ineffective, absent an unequivocal override provision.
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (15 U.S.C. §§ 2302, 2304, 2310): Federal right of action for breach of written or implied warranties, dependent on a reasonable opportunity to cure.
Mathews v. REV Recreation Group, Inc. (7th Cir. 2019) & Zylstra v. DRV, LLC (7th Cir. 2021): Allowed two repair attempts for full written warranties, but the Indiana Supreme Court distinguished those fact patterns as involving explicit written warranties and the Lemon Law context.
Anderson v. Gulf Stream Coach, Inc. (7th Cir. 2011): Clarified that without an express cure condition in a limited warranty, cure opportunity is not a suit precondition—but suggested notice’s purpose is to allow cure.
Gorman v. Saf-T-Mate, Inc. (N.D. Ind. 1981): Defined “cure” as “repair, replacement or refund,” endorsing a broad meaning consistent with dictionary definitions.

2. Legal Reasoning

Contract Interpretation: Under Indiana law, courts construe an ambiguous contract against its drafter. A printed “AS IS” disclaimer survives only if it is unambiguous. Here, the Buyers Guide contained:

An unchecked but prominently described “SERVICE CONTRACT” option warning that implied warranties “may give [the buyer] additional rights.”
A handwritten notation of a Wynn’s service warranty directly beneath the “DEALER WARRANTY” heading.

These features, read together with the Sales Agreement’s conflict clause, created ambiguity. Because Valpo drafted both documents, the ambiguity defeats the disclaimer as a matter of law.

MMWA Cure Requirement: The MMWA prohibits suit for breach of any written or implied warranty unless “the person obligated under the warranty … is afforded a reasonable opportunity to cure such failure to comply” (15 U.S.C. § 2310(e)). The Act does not define “reasonable opportunity to cure,” but:

“Cure” is broadly understood to include repair, replacement, or refund.
Unlike § 2304(a) (full written warranties), which uses the plural “attempts,” § 2310(e)’s passive voice contemplates one reasonable opportunity.
Reasonable cure may be shown by direct request or by seller notice of the defect plus failure to remedy.

Thomas produced evidence that he informed Valpo of the Car’s pervasive defects and offered Valpo a chance to “rectify,” and that Valpo later proposed a partial refund. These facts create a triable issue on whether Valpo had its statutory opportunity to cure.

3. Impact

This ruling clarifies two critical points:

Disclaimers Must Be Unambiguous: Used-car dealers and other merchants must ensure any “as is” or “with all faults” disclaimers are free from mixed messages—no conflicting references to third-party service contracts or implied-warranty rights can remain in the same document.
Single Cure Opportunity in MMWA Actions: Consumers suing for breach of implied warranty under the MMWA need only show that the seller had one reasonable chance to cure—via request or actual notice—before filing suit. Sellers must track and respond to buyer notices promptly to preserve cure defenses.

Future cases will look to this decision for guidance on drafting clean, stand-alone disclaimer forms and on contesting federal claims under § 2310(e).

Complex Concepts Simplified

Implied Warranty of Merchantability: A guarantee, by operation of law, that goods sold by a merchant are fit for ordinary use—unless clearly disclaimed.
Conspicuousness: A legal standard requiring that disclaimers be written in a way that a reasonable buyer would notice and understand them (e.g., bold font, clear headings).
“As Is” Sale: Selling goods in their existing condition, disclaiming any implied warranties—effective only if the buyer is unambiguously told there are no warranties.
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (MMWA): A federal law that provides consumers a private right of action for breach of written or implied warranties on consumer products, subject to certain requirements (e.g., cure opportunity).
Reasonable Opportunity to Cure: The chance afforded to a seller to correct a defect—by fixing, replacing, or refunding—before a consumer can file suit under the MMWA.
Summary Judgment: A pre-trial procedure where the court decides a case (or issues in a case) without trial, if there is no genuine dispute of material fact and one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Conclusion

The Indiana Supreme Court in Thomas v. Valpo Motors has reaffirmed the consumer-protective roots of the implied warranty of merchantability and the MMWA. Merchants must draft warranty disclaimers with precision and leave no ambiguity about the buyer’s rights. Likewise, a single reasonable opportunity for cure suffices under § 2310(e), but sellers must be prepared to respond to buyer notices or requests promptly. This decision strengthens clarity in commercial transactions and ensures meaningful opportunities for sellers to address defects before costly litigation.