Bob’s Discount Furniture Hit with Another Class Action over ‘Goof Proof’ Insurance Plans

New to ClassAction.org? Read our Newswire Disclaimer

A proposed class action alleges Bob’s Discount Furniture has misrepresented its “Goof Proof Protection” plans given customers’ claims can be denied “on almost any basis,” including if a buyer cannot identify the exact date on which a tear or stain occurred. 

The 21-page case, echoing a similar suit filed in New York in January 2021, alleges Bob’s sale of the “Goof Proof” plans, administered by third-party Guardian Protection Products, causes harm to consumers in that the extended service warranties’ apparently limited scope is not clearly defined by the furniture retailer, who leads consumers to believe the plans cover a broad array of accidental damage. 

Although documents presented to consumers represent the “Goof Proof” plan as the best way to “protect your investment from a wide variety of accidents for 5 years,” what the insurance plans actually cover does not meet the definition of a bona fide service contract, the lawsuit alleges. 

“Regardless of the three card Monty game which purports to offer coverage from accidents and ‘misuse,’ the coverage is a scam and worthless,” the lawsuit alleges. 

The plaintiff, an Illinois consumer, alleges in the case that Bob’s and Guardian wrongfully denied the “Goof Proof” coverage claim she submitted after the wood slats underneath a queen-sized bed she bought in November 2020 broke shortly after purchase. According to the suit, the plaintiff’s accidental damage claim was denied by Guardian on the basis that “she was not using the product as intended.” 

“It is false and deceptive for Defendant Bob’s to market an insurance product that promises to provide coverage for ‘goofs,’ yet also describe Goof Proof as coverage for accidents,” the complaint says. “Consumers understand the term ‘Goof Proof’ broadly to mean ‘mistake proof,’ i.e., if something goes wrong with furniture, they will be covered if they purchased Goof Proof.” 

According to the lawsuit, concern exists around the sale of extended service warranties by third parties as they may fail to disclose essential coverage terms, refuse to cover certain expenses or decline to provide adequate service for a particular product. In the case of the “Goof Proof” plans sold by Bob’s and administered by Guardian, the latter, via Bob’s, forms a contract with the customer for a period of five years, and in theory assumes risk by agreeing to indemnify the insured for losses specifically related to accidental damage to furniture, such as stains or tears, the lawsuit says: 

“Goof Proof explicitly does not promise to repair, replace, or maintain the furniture in connection with its ‘operational or structural failure due to a defect in materials or workmanship, or normal wear and tear.’ Goof Proof is intended to cover fortuitous events, or those that happen by accident or chance, rather than by design.” 

Per the complaint, an insurer such as Guardian cannot confine causation to the point where recovery for a customer’s claim is impossible. The requirement of fortuity as it relates to “Goof Proof claims,” the case says, “ensures that the scope of coverage provided is consistent with the reasonable expectations of the contracting parties.” 

Given the foregoing, the plaintiff contends that the damage incurred to the Bob’s bed she purchased clearly fits within Guardian’s extended warranty plan, yet was wrongfully characterized as “misuse,” an apparently common reason for coverage denials. 

“Defendant Guardian denies most claims based on ‘misuse,’” the suit alleges. “However, the definition of ‘Goof’ encompasses ‘misuse,’ even inadvertent misuse.” 

The lawsuit contends that Bob’s alleged sale of products “tantamount to insurance” but without the protections and restrictions imposed on insurance contracts is harmful to the public. Moreover, the case relays that consumers may be incentivized to buy “Goof Proof” coverage given the discounted nature of Bob’s products. 

Per the filing, Bob’s “receives incentives from Defendant Guardian for every warranty it sells to consumers,” and sales employees “receive bonuses for the number of Goof Proof products they sell.” 

“The salesperson conveyed to Plaintiff that Goof Proof would cover ‘anything and everything,’ when Plaintiff asked questions about purchasing the coverage,” the case claims. 

The lawsuit goes on to claim that Bob’s and Guardian “regularly” deny “Goof Proof” claims if a customer is unable to identify the exact date within a 30-day period when a stain or damage occurred, or if there is more than one marking or puncture on a piece of furniture. 

“Defendant Bob’s sold more of the Goof Proof Products, and at higher prices, than it would have in the absence of this misconduct, resulting in additional profits at the expense of consumers,” the suit alleges.

Get class action lawsuit news sent to your inbox – sign up for ClassAction.org’s free weekly newsletter here.