To enact section 1547.85 of the Revised Code regarding watercraft dealers and warranty service repair work.
SB 458 would create a new section of Ohio law governing the relationship between watercraft manufacturers and watercraft dealers when warranty and recall repairs are performed. The bill requires manufacturers with dealer agreements to honor warranty and recall obligations for diagnosing, repairing, and servicing watercraft, including parts and components installed in the watercraft. It also sets a framework for how dealers may establish their retail labor rates and parts markup percentages, using recent nonwarranty repair orders to calculate those rates and allowing manufacturers to request additional documentation if the submitted rates appear substantially higher or lower than the manufacturer’s existing records.
The bill further requires manufacturers to compensate dealers at rates tied to the dealer’s retail labor rate and parts markup, and it specifies that compensation must cover reasonable and necessary incidental tasks related to warranty repairs, such as hooking up or unhooking watercraft, accessing compartments, paperwork, and on-water performance evaluations. It also requires reimbursement for parts supplied at no cost for warranty or recall work, and it prohibits manufacturers from imposing retaliatory measures such as penalties, surcharges, reduced allocation of watercraft or parts, or other cost-shifting in response to a dealer’s use of these rights.
If enacted, SB 458 would add a new statutory protection for watercraft dealers in Ohio and impose new warranty reimbursement obligations on manufacturers that have dealer agreements. It would affect how labor rates and parts markups are calculated and documented, limit manufacturer discretion in setting those rates, and create a legal basis for dealers to seek compensation for warranty and recall work at retail-like rates. The bill would also constrain manufacturer conduct by barring certain retaliatory practices and by requiring reasonable time allowances and reimbursement for incidental repair-related tasks.
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee testimony or votes in the provided materials, the overall sentiment appears to be supportive of strengthening dealer protections and clarifying manufacturer reimbursement duties. The measure is framed as a dealer-rights and warranty-compensation bill, suggesting its purpose is to address perceived underpayment or administrative burdens on watercraft dealers performing manufacturer warranty work. No formal opposition, amendments, or recorded vote history is provided in the context, so there is no documented public controversy in the available materials.
The main points of potential contention are the bill’s limits on manufacturer control over reimbursement calculations and its anti-retaliation provisions. Manufacturers may object to being required to pay dealer-set retail labor rates and parts markups, to reimburse incidental tasks and on-water testing costs, and to refrain from unilateral rate calculations or burdensome documentation demands. Dealers, by contrast, would likely support the bill because it gives them a clearer path to recover warranty and recall costs and protects them from alleged retaliation when asserting those rights.