Community Forums

geekyexplore · 02-03-2011, 12:47 PM

We just picked up our new-to-us Class A RV and I started reading the owners manual. It has said no less than 4-5 times that the rig is not meant for living in fulltime (which is actually exactly what we intend to do). I assume a lot of it is warranty related based on the wording. Has anyone read their owners manual & if so, does it promote fulltiming? Just curious...

-tricia

Samc · 02-03-2011, 12:50 PM

Mine says the same thing. I suspect it's for dodging warrantee issues, if need be.

GOLDWINGER2 · 02-03-2011, 12:59 PM

Mine says the same and states that everything will wear out quickly if you do live in it continuously. I've seen some, my year, that have been lived in.

J

GaryKD · 02-03-2011, 01:08 PM

Hi geekyexplore,
This statement comes from the manufacturer's attorney. The repercussions depend on what state one resides in. The statement prevents an owner declaring (for warranty and other legal ramifications) the coach is their "house". The manufacturers state they build recreational vehicles, to be used for recreational purposes.

geekyexplore · 02-03-2011, 01:32 PM

Thanks... it sounded very 'legal' and came around items that I would assume have warranty issues around it. I just found it a little odd. Glad it is not just a Fleetwood Pace Arrow thing. :-)

-tricia

markndeb1970 · 02-03-2011, 02:13 PM

Funny how that works as you can claim the loan interest on your taxes because it (RV) is considered a second residence. But then again it might wear out quickly...LOL

GOLDWINGER2 · 02-03-2011, 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by markndeb1970

Funny how that works as you can claim the loan interest on your taxes because it (RV) is considered a second residence. But then again it might wear out quickly...LOL

The key word is "second". Most things will hold up pretty well in the RV. The couch seems to take most of the beating unless it is of high quality.
J

Gary RVRoamer · 02-05-2011, 04:30 PM

It's very simple and a matter of state and federal law. If the manufacturer ever stated that people could live in it full time, the RV would have to comply to the Manufactured Home building code (aka HUD code) rather than the much looser Recreational Vehicle standards.

Numerous exceptions to the Manufactured Housing code requirements are justified based on the recreational (i.e. part time) nature of an RV. If they ever stated otherwise, they would not be allowed to sell RVs until they complied with the stiffer codes. Some very obvious differences are waste systems (no holding tanks), hurricane safety tie downs to be attached at every campsite, much better floor, roof & sidewall insulation, and so on. Some of the differences would be well received, but the price would also go up substantially.

edj · 02-05-2011, 04:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by geekyexplore

We just picked up our new-to-us Class A RV and I started reading the owners manual. It has said no less than 4-5 times that the rig is not meant for living in fulltime (which is actually exactly what we intend to do). I assume a lot of it is warranty related based on the wording. Has anyone read their owners manual & if so, does it promote fulltiming? Just curious...

-tricia

Basically, that is 'legalize' to get out of the warranty for a heavily used RV. If they RV is cheaply made, it will break much more often with heavy usage.

There are several 'upscale' 5th-wheel manufactures that cater to full-timers and build rigs for their needs. Brands such as NuWa, Excel, Carriage and Mobile Suites come to mind. I am sure there are others that I can not think of at the moment.

JMonroe · 02-05-2011, 09:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gary RVRoamer

It's very simple and a matter of state and federal law. If the manufacturer ever stated that people could live in it full time, the RV would have to comply to the Manufactured Home building code (aka HUD code) rather than the much looser Recreational Vehicle standards...

Gary has it exactly right. I worked for just over 30 years in the auto claim department of State Farm insurance. An RV is covered by a RV policy, within our auto insurance company, a mobile home would be covered under a home owners policy. Where people ran into trouble is if they 'permanently' located their RV, with no intention of ever moving it. I reported many such situations to our underwriting department and the policy would quickly be cancelled (we'd have to pay the claim reported, but would get off the risk immediately thereafter). In my case, I would be fairly liberal in my interpretation. If the rig was intact (I saw one, as example, where the owner had actually taken a torch and cut off the 'A' frame - hitch portion of the TT frame, so as to make more room on his site), and it looked like I could, if need be, have it off the site in 20 - 30 minutes, I'd consider it as still 'mobile'. On the other hand, I saw many that had permanently attached rooms, decks, or whatever. The RV was essencially being used as a pre-fab residence, there was no way it could ever be moved, or if it could, it would take days of work to get it off the site.

Insurance companies are very strictly regulated and their filing with the state department of insurance defines what can or can not be covered under any particular policy form, using commonly accepted legal definitions of an auto, home or RV (again, refer to Gary's post). If it did not meet that definition it did not qualify for coverage. No company is going to risk its license to do business, knowingly. A problem exists when the agent is not well educated on the legal distinctions and policy requirements, or when an agent is knowingly willing to 'bend' the rules to get an otherwise good customer coverage, or when a customer's use changes from when the policy was first purchased (originally used it to travel, eventually parked it on a 'permanent' site, without telling the insurance company of the change in use).

Here in WI, if we'd written a policy on the 'RV' that really didn't qualify, and it suffered say, a hail loss, we'd cover it, assuming the error was on us, but you'd lose your coverage after that. As Gary explains, built to RV specs, not meeting home building codes, it does not qualify for a homeowners policy, and no longer being 'mobile', it no longer qualifies for coverage on an auto policy either.

geekyexplore · 02-07-2011, 05:40 AM

Thanks for all the feedback everyone. I guess I never thought of adding a 'structure' to an RV so I can see how for insurance purposes not having it mobile would fit it into another housing category, and how the manufacturer would not want to take on that liability.

edj- we actually looked at a Nu-Wa and other 5th wheels but in order to tow properly we would have had to buy a new truck, along with a new 5th wheel putting us far over what we spent on our Class A.

-tricia

edj · 02-07-2011, 06:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by geekyexplore

edj- we actually looked at a Nu-Wa and other 5th wheels but in order to tow properly we would have had to buy a new truck, along with a new 5th wheel putting us far over what we spent on our Class A.

-tricia

The 'budget' definitely has a big impact on what type and model RV one purchases. In most RV's all the major components (stove/fridge/furnace/AC/etc) are from the same vendors. The difference comes the RV design and how it is built. Good luck on your travels....