Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Consumer Protection topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee votes to table effort to expand lemon-law arbitration to recreational vehicles
Summary
After testimony from arbitration board members and dealers, the House Transportation Committee voted 9–7 to recommend ‘inexpedient to legislate’ on HB 1075, which would have applied motor-vehicle arbitration rules to motorized recreational vehicles.
The House Transportation Committee recommended against advancing House Bill 1075, a measure that sought to apply New Hampshire’s motor-vehicle arbitration (lemon-law) process to certain recreational vehicles, voting 9–7 in executive session.
Representative Jack Flanigan, the bill’s prime sponsor, told the committee he introduced HB 1075 as a consumer-protection measure after seeing online reports of high-end campers flooding and of buyers getting “the runaround” when VINs and registrations did not align. “If I owned a $700,000 camper and it was flooding every time it rained and the manufacturer basically said, ‘Go back to your dealer,’ that’s a serious problem,” Flanigan said in committee testimony.
But Dian Enzing, who identified themself as chairman of the Motor Vehicle Arbitration Board (speaking as an individual), opposed the bill. Enzing explained the board’s current jurisdiction (motor vehicles under 11,000 lbs, motorcycles, ATVs, snowmobiles) and said most motorized RVs weigh more than 11,000 lbs and include many separately warrantied components—washers, refrigerators, televisions and plumbing—each often backed by a different manufacturer. “Our board is not set up to handle recreational vehicles as stated in this bill,” Enzing said, adding that arbitration panels are designed to address single-manufacturer warranty disputes.
Jay Olri of the New Hampshire Automobile Dealers Association said dealers do not want to be placed in the role of making manufacturers whole for subcomponents they did not make and suggested any expansion be limited to chassis, engine and drivetrain coverage rather than interior appliances.
Committee members who favored the bill framed it as a step toward consumer protection; opponents and those who supported ITL cited the arbitration board’s structural limits and the practical difficulty of imposing a single arbitration remedy across multiple component manufacturers. Representative Hamlin moved the ITL recommendation in executive session; the motion carried 9–7.
The committee’s action ends HB 1075 in committee for this session. The transcript record shows the hearing and discussion began at the committee’s opening and included sponsor remarks, testimony from Enzing and industry commentary before the executive session motion that produced the 9–7 outcome.
