SB1669 replaces the existing RV dealer warranty statute with two new sections that (1) create a private civil remedy and mandatory pre‑suit mediation process for violations of the RV dealer chapter and (2) tighten warrantor obligations on compensation, parts supply, claim timing and reimbursement for off‑site repair travel time. The bill requires courts to award attorney's fees to prevailing parties, sets venue rules in favor of the dealership's county, and authorizes injunctions without bond for violations.
For dealers and manufacturers this is operationally significant: it creates a defined path to damages and injunctive relief, imposes concrete deadlines for parts supply and claim decisions (including an automatic approval mechanism), and mandates minimum handling reimbursement and travel‑time compensation that could increase warranty program costs and change how off‑site repairs are billed and documented.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill creates section 407.1321 to give dealers, manufacturers, distributors, and warrantors a private right of action for violations of the RV dealer chapter, requires a written pre‑suit mediation demand (with a statutory stay), and allows circuit courts to issue injunctions without bond. It replaces section 407.1338 to impose written warranty obligations, minimum parts and labor reimbursement formulas, strict timelines for parts and claim handling, and a new minimum travel‑time reimbursement requirement.
Who It Affects
Franchised and independent RV dealers in Missouri, RV manufacturers, distributors and warrantors that supply parts and warranty coverage, in‑field service technicians and dealership employees who perform mobile repairs, and mediators/courts handling dealer disputes.
Why It Matters
The bill shifts dispute leverage toward dealers by creating quicker remedies (injunctions without bond, automatic claim approvals) and predictable reimbursement rules (wholesale + 30% handling, minimum 75% travel‑time compensation). Compliance officers and finance teams at manufacturers will need to update claim workflows, parts logistics, and cash‑flow forecasting to meet the new timing and payment rules.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SB1669 splits the old statutory regime into two clear pieces: a procedural enforcement section (407.1321) and a revised substance section for warranty and dealer obligations (407.1338). The enforcement piece gives dealers and related parties an explicit right to sue for actual damages and requires courts to award attorney’s fees to the winning party.
It also pins venue to the county where the dealership is located (or any county where a plaintiff dealer resides if multiple dealers are involved), which concentrates litigation locally rather than allowing forum shopping.
Before filing most lawsuits under the dealer chapter the plaintiff must serve a written demand for mediation on the alleged violator, following strict delivery rules (certified mail to the agreement address or license address). The parties have twenty days to pick a mediator and must meet in‑state; the statute stays filing deadlines until that mediation meeting has occurred, although parties can stipulate to longer suspensions.
The law requires each party to pay its own attorneys’ fees for the mediation and split the mediator fee. The statute preserves the ability to seek injunctive relief — and separately authorizes courts to issue temporary or permanent injunctions without bond based on a single violating act.The reworked warranty section compels warrantors to spell out, in writing, dealer obligations for preparation, delivery and warranty service and to provide a schedule of compensation and time allowances that include diagnostic labor.
The bill sets a floor on parts reimbursement (actual wholesale cost plus a minimum 30% handling charge and return freight) and forces manufacturers to supply parts quickly; if required parts are not shipped within ten days a dealer may buy equivalent parts and must be reimbursed at 100% of cost within thirty days.SB1669 also tightens claim and payment timing: dealers must submit claims within thirty days of completing work; warrantors must disapprove claims in writing within thirty days or the claim is deemed approved and must be paid within forty‑five days. The statute permits reasonable warranty audits but limits denial of claims to specific causes such as fraud, material non‑compliance, or lack of documentation.
A notable addition requires warrantors to pay dealers at least 75% of employee travel time for off‑site warranty repairs when documented and claimed within thirty days, which formalizes compensation for mobile service labor that dealers have often pursued informally.Finally, the bill preserves dealer obligations and sanctions: dealers must perform required predelivery inspections competently, perform authorized warranty work for transient customers in a timely manner, and refrain from misrepresenting warranty terms. Together these changes create a more prescriptive operational framework for parts logistics, claim adjudication, and the economics of field service work.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill creates a private right of action for dealers, manufacturers, distributors, and warrantors for violations of sections 407.1320–407.1346 and requires courts to award attorney’s fees to the prevailing party; venue is exclusive to the county where the dealership is located.
A written pre‑suit demand for mediation is mandatory (except for injunctive relief); parties must select a mediator within 20 days, meet in‑state, and filings are stayed until that mediation meeting occurs.
Circuit courts may issue temporary or permanent injunctions without bond to restrain unlicensed activity or ongoing violations; a single violating act is sufficient to support injunctive relief.
Warrantors must reimburse parts at actual wholesale cost plus a minimum 30% handling charge and return freight, and must supply parts promptly — if parts are not shipped within 10 days the dealer may source them and be reimbursed 100% within 30 days.
Dealers must submit warranty claims within 30 days of completing work; warrantors must disapprove claims in writing within 30 days or the claim is deemed approved and paid within 45 days, and warrantors must compensate at least 75% of dealership employee travel time for off‑site warranty repairs when documented.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Private right of action, damages and fee shifting
This subsection establishes who can sue (dealer, manufacturer, distributor or warrantor) for violations of the RV dealer statute and makes actual damages available. It mandates fee‑shifting by requiring the court to award attorney’s fees and costs to any prevailing party, which raises the stakes for both plaintiffs and defendants and is likely to influence settlement calculus.
Mandatory pre‑suit mediation and stay
Plaintiffs must serve a written demand for mediation by certified mail to the contract or license address and include a short statement of the dispute and relief sought. The parties have 20 days to choose a mutually acceptable mediator and must meet in Missouri; the statute stays court filings until the mediation meeting occurs, though the mediator can extend meeting dates and parties can stipulate to longer suspensions. The mediation requirement does not apply to requests for injunctive relief.
Injunctive relief without bond
Dealers or manufacturers can seek temporary or permanent injunctions to stop unlicensed activity or ongoing violations of the dealer chapter. The statute authorizes courts to issue injunctions without posting a bond and clarifies that a single act can suffice to support equitable relief, lowering the evidentiary threshold for emergency relief in some cases.
Written warranty obligations, compensation formulas and parts supply
Warrantors must set out dealer obligations and a compensation schedule in writing, and include time allowances and reimbursement for diagnostic labor. The bill sets a concrete parts reimbursement floor — actual wholesale cost plus a minimum 30% handling charge and return freight — and requires warrantors to supply parts in quantities and timelines that avoid undue delay. If a warrantor fails to ship necessary parts within ten days, dealers may source equivalent parts and be reimbursed in full within thirty days, which creates a clear remedy for slow parts logistics.
Claims process, audits, and travel‑time reimbursement
Warranty audits remain permissible on a reasonable basis but claim denials are limited to enumerated causes (fraud, material noncompliance, lack of documentation, etc.). Dealers must submit claims within 30 days of completing work; warrantors must disapprove claims in writing within 30 days in the prescribed manner, or the claim is treated as approved and must be paid within 45 days. The section adds a new minimum: warrantors may not compensate dealers for less than 75% of an employee’s travel time for off‑site warranty work provided the dealer documents that time and files the claim within 30 days, which formalizes reimbursement for mobile service labor.
Enumerated warrantor and dealer violations
The statute lists specific warrantor violations (failure to perform warranty obligations, failures in factory campaign notices, failure to compensate for authorized repair or transit damage, requiring dealers to assume manufacturing warranties, and the new travel‑time compensation floor) and dealer violations (failing to perform required PDIs, failing to timely and competently perform authorized warranty work for transient customers, and misrepresenting warranty terms). These enumerations define enforcement triggers and limit the bases for denials or penalties.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Transportation across all five countries.
Explore Transportation in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Franchised RV dealers — Receive clearer payment rules (wholesale + 30% handling on parts), predictable claim timelines with an automatic approval rule, and minimum travel‑time reimbursement, improving cash‑flow certainty for warranty operations.
- Independent repair shops and mobile service technicians — The 75% travel‑time compensation provision and the right for dealers to source delayed parts make off‑site warranty work more economically viable and reduce out‑of‑pocket risk.
- Dealership finance and service managers — Gain procedural predictability (mandatory mediation, venue fixed to dealer county, explicit timelines) that can be translated into standardized claims workflows and billing practices.
- Manufacturers or warrantors that document timely performance — Benefit from a structured mediation requirement that can reduce frivolous litigation and a narrow list of justifications for denying claims (fraud, material noncompliance, etc.), which simplifies dispute handling if they comply.
Who Bears the Cost
- Warrantors/manufacturers — Face higher direct costs from the 30% minimum parts handling fee, full reimbursement when dealers source delayed parts, faster payment cycles (45 days after deemed approval), and payment of at least 75% of employee travel time for off‑site repairs.
- Smaller distributors or warrantors with thin margins — May face cash‑flow strain from accelerated payment obligations and reimbursement rules, especially during parts shortages or large factory campaigns.
- Dealers — Must maintain contemporaneous documentation and timely file claims (within 30 days) to access protections; they also absorb half the mediator fee and their own attorney costs during mediation.
- Missouri courts and mediators — Will see a new stream of mediation‑stayed filings and might adjudicate more injunctive motions without bond, which can increase short‑term docket congestion and demand for mediator services.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between giving dealers predictable, enforceable remedies (faster payments, guaranteed reimbursement minimums, and quick injunctive relief) and imposing operational and cash‑flow burdens on warrantors and manufacturers; the statute reduces uncertainty for dealers but increases the risk of disruptive, costly outcomes for manufacturers and smaller warrantors, especially where statutory terms like “reasonable” are left undefined.
The bill trades clearer dealer protections for a set of ambiguities and practical strains. Key terms such as “reasonable” time allowances for diagnostic work, “reasonable basis” for audits, and “as soon as reasonably possible” for notifying inability to perform repetitive repairs are left undefined and will generate disputes about standards of proof and operational benchmarks.
The 30% handling floor and the 75% travel‑time minimum are concrete but mechanically blunt tools: they simplify billing but may not align with actual logistics costs, regional labor rates, or the complexity of parts sourcing.
The process design also creates implementation tensions. Mandatory pre‑suit mediation and stays intend to defuse litigation, but the statutory stop‑the‑clock only pauses filing deadlines until the mediation meeting — not necessarily until mediation concludes — which parties may exploit to delay or game litigation timelines.
Conversely, automatic approval of claims not disapproved in 30 days forces warrantors into faster adjudication cycles that can strain accounting and cash management during high‑volume campaigns or supply disruptions. Finally, empowering courts to issue injunctions without bond and treating a single act as sufficient to justify injunctive relief lowers the threshold for emergency relief and raises the risk of rapid, high‑impact enforcement steps against manufacturers or dealers before full merits adjudication.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.