SB 484 creates a new chapter in Indiana law governing recreational vehicle dealer agreements between RV manufacturers or distributors and licensed RV dealers. The bill requires those parties to use written agreements, defines key terms such as area of sales responsibility, line make, model, motor home, travel trailer, camping trailer, fifth wheel travel trailer, warrantor, and transient customer, and sets rules for how RV dealers may sell, display, and participate in RV shows. It also establishes protections for dealers regarding exclusive sales territories, Sunday sales at RV shows, fair and equitable distribution of vehicles, access to technical data, and limits on manufacturer policies that would alter dealer agreements.
The bill also adds detailed standards for termination, nonrenewal, succession, ownership changes, repurchase obligations, warranty reimbursement, indemnification, mediation, civil remedies, and enforcement. Manufacturers and distributors generally may not terminate or refuse to renew a dealer agreement without good cause, must provide notice and an opportunity to cure in many cases, and may be required to repurchase inventory, parts, tools, and equipment if the agreement ends under specified circumstances. Warranty labor, parts, and campaign work must be compensated under set rules, and both dealers and warrantors receive reciprocal indemnification protections. Violations can lead to civil actions, injunctions, license suspension or revocation, and civil penalties deposited into the dealer enforcement account.
The bill’s impact on state law is substantial within Indiana’s motor vehicle code, especially Article 32, by creating a comprehensive regulatory framework specifically for recreational vehicle dealer agreements. It amends multiple definitional sections in Title 9 and adds new provisions that govern dealer-manufacturer relationships, sales territory protections, warranty reimbursement, repurchase rights, and dispute resolution. It also expands the dealer enforcement account to receive civil penalties collected under the new chapter, giving the secretary an enforcement funding source tied to compliance with the new RV dealer rules.
The overall sentiment reflected in the voting history appears strongly favorable. The bill passed the Senate 47-1, passed the House unanimously 96-0, and then the Senate concurred with House amendments 49-0. No committee transcript was provided, so there is no recorded debate to identify specific arguments, but the near-unanimous votes suggest broad bipartisan support for the bill’s dealer protections and regulatory clarity.
The main points of contention implied by the bill’s structure are the balance of power between RV manufacturers/distributors and dealers, especially over exclusive territories, termination rights, coercion, and warranty reimbursement. The bill limits manufacturer discretion in several areas, such as changing sales responsibility areas, imposing arbitration or waiver provisions, and denying warranty claims without good cause, while also giving manufacturers some protections, including objection rights for ownership changes and succession. These provisions suggest the bill was designed to address dealer concerns about manufacturer leverage and to standardize RV franchise practices across the state.
SB 484 amends Indiana’s motor vehicle statutes and adds a new chapter governing recreational vehicle dealer agreements, creating enforceable rights and duties for RV manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and warrantors. It changes multiple definitions in Title 9 and adds new terms tied specifically to RV sales and service, while also establishing new rules for territory exclusivity, dealer succession, repurchase obligations, warranty compensation, mediation, civil actions, injunctions, and penalties. The bill also directs civil penalties into the dealer enforcement account, strengthening the enforcement structure for this part of the code.
The bill appears to have received strong, broad support. It passed the Senate 47-1, the House 96-0, and the Senate concurred with House amendments 49-0. With no committee transcript available, the record does not show detailed floor debate, but the overwhelming votes indicate a generally positive sentiment toward the bill’s dealer protections and regulatory framework.
The bill’s likely points of contention center on manufacturer/distributor control versus dealer autonomy. It restricts manufacturers from changing sales territories, coercing dealers, or terminating agreements without good cause, while requiring repurchase and warranty reimbursement obligations that may be viewed as burdensome by manufacturers. At the same time, it gives manufacturers some protections, such as the ability to object to ownership changes and succession for specified reasons, suggesting the legislation sought to balance competing interests in the RV market.