The insurer has now filed a grievance on behalf of its client against the massive RV manufacturer.
Progressive Classic Insurance Company has now sued Winnebago industries on behalf of its Cleveland, Ohio client, Jerry Harry, at a Mason Circuit Court, with a claim of negligence in a fire that occurred in the RV of the client in 2013.
The filing said that a recreational vehicle was purchased by Harry and RV insurance was purchased through Progressive.
The vehicle in question is a 2012 Winnebago Vista 35F. It was purchased in January 2013 and coverage was purchased through the RV insurance company on January 28, 2013. On April 14, 2013, a fire started within the vehicle. After the incident, the customer filed a claim with Progressive and the company provided a compensation for the damages that occurred, for an amount that was estimated to be $126,661.17.
That said, the insurance company has now sued Winnebago for having poorly manufactured the RV.
The lawsuit states that the recreational vehicle’s design and/or construction was negligent at the point of its manufacturing. Progressive also went on to say that due to this nature of the RV, the defendant was negligent and has allegedly breached the warranty. More specifically, the lawsuit alleges that upon purchase of the Winnebago, there were already electrical components that were defective. It also stated that there was a breach of both the implied and express warranty on the parts of that RV.
Through the lawsuit, Progressive Insurance is seeking to be able to recoup the amount that it paid out in damages for losses that occurred as a result of the fire. The amount being sought is $126.661.17 for the insurance payments, in addition to the statutory interest, as well as the costs and fees from the company’s attorneys.
The insurance company’s representation is through Rebecca Wright of Rathbone Group, which is located in Huntington. It’s Mason Circuit Court case number is 15-C-43 and it has been assigned to Judge Thomas C. Evans III. At the time that this article was written, no immediate comment had been released by either the insurer or the RV manufacturer, but that is standard practice in such legal situations.