Houston Independent Automobile Dealers Association July Issue: Social Media | Page 16

Analyzing West Virginia’s warranty exemption, the court found that (1) Innovative’s policy was simply a guarantee by the anti-theft system’s manufacturer of the system’s performance, (2) Bare did not claim that he purchased the policy separately from the anti-theft system, and (3) the monetary benefit under the policy would be paid only to Bare. Therefore, the court concluded that the policy was a warranty and exempt from West Virginia insurance law. Do you know the rules that apply to the sale of “ancillary” or “aftermarket” products during the F&I process? These rules vary by state and by product, and, as this case illustrates, a consumer’s lawyer might allege that insurance laws apply to the products. If you haven’t had each product you sell vetted for compliance under state and federal law, it’s time to get a move on. Bare v. Innovative Aftermarket Systems, LP, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68746 (S.D.W. Va. May 5, 2017) So there’s this month’s roundup! Stay legal, and we’ll see you next month. ________ Tom ([email protected]) is Of Counsel and Nikki ([email protected]) is a partner in the law firm of Hudson Cook, LLP. Tom has written several books and is the publisher of Spot Delivery®, a monthly legal newsletter for auto dealers. He is Editor in Chief of CARLAW®, a monthly report of legal developments for the auto finance and leasing industry. Nikki is a contributing author to the F&I Legal Desk Book and frequently writes for Spot Delivery. For information, visit www.counselorlibrary.com. © CounselorLibrary.com 2017, all rights reserved. Single publication rights only, to the Association. (6/17). HC# 4824-2020-4362