Vail Resorts Refused to Issue Refunds After Closing Mountain Resorts Due to COVID-19, Class Action Claims [DISMISSED]
by Erin Shaak
Last Updated on July 25, 2024
Hunt v. The Vail Corporation
Filed: April 10, 2020 ◆§ 3:20-cv-02463-LB
A lawsuit claims the Vail Corporation has refused to issue refunds to passholders after closing all of its North American ski resorts in response to the coronavirus pandemic.
Case Updates
July 25, 2024 – Vail Resort COVID-19 Closure Lawsuit Dismissed
The proposed class action lawsuit detailed in the update below was consolidated with several similar cases and later dismissed on June 25, 2024.
Want to stay in the loop on class actions that matter to you? Sign up for ClassAction.org’s free weekly newsletter here.
In a 23-page order granting Vail Resort’s motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ second amended complaint, U.S. District Judge R. Brooke Jackson found that the plaintiffs failed to adequately allege that the company breached its contract with passholders when it prematurely closed its resorts in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and resulting government orders.
Judge Jackson had granted Vail’s previous motion to dismiss the case in September 2023, finding that the company’s contract gave it discretion to keep resorts open until it determined, in good faith, that skiing and snowboarding were no longer safe. The judge also found that Vail had issued “satisfactory” refunds in the form of credits despite the no-refund clause in its contracts.
The plaintiffs appealed the decision to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled in June 2023 that the passholders were not entitled to refunds for the shortened 2019-2020 ski season. The panel found that Vail’s contract explicitly stated that the ski passes were not eligible for “refunds of any kind,” but remanded the case to allow the plaintiffs to refile their claims in pursuit of an alternative remedy.
Judge Jackson ultimately ruled that the plaintiffs were not entitled to the new remedies they sought, including monetary damages or free access to Vail’s resorts beyond its offer of ski season credits that could have been applied to the 2020–2021 ski season with the purchase of a new pass.
“As I previously noted, it is merely speculative to assert that Passholders were deceived into believing Vail would provide other forms of monetary compensation—when its contract expressly bars refunds—or access to its resorts during subsequent ski seasons without having to purchase a new pass—when the contract is silent on this issue,” the judge wrote.
Are you owed unclaimed settlement money? Check out our class action rebates page full of open class action settlements.
April 27, 2020 – Another Case Filed
The Vail Corporation faces another proposed class action filed in Colorado over the mountain resort operator’s alleged refusal to issue proper refunds to passholders after suspending operations at its North American locations in March.
The lawsuit looks to cover anyone in the U.S. who purchased a 2019-2020 Season Epic Pass or Epic Daily Pass that had unused days as of March 15, 2020.
The Vail Corporation has refused to issue refunds to passholders after closing all of its North American ski resorts on March 25, 2020 in response to the coronavirus pandemic, according to a proposed class action out of California.
The 18-page lawsuit explains that the defendant, which does business as Vail Resorts Management Company, sells “Epic Passes” that purport to provide “unlimited, unrestricted skiing” at the company’s more than 34 North American resorts. According to the complaint, skiers can choose between purchasing an annual pass for $319 to $979, a weekly pass for $391 to $766, and a day/multi-day pass for $67 to $766. Epic Day Passes can be purchased in packages of “1 to 7 total days,” the lawsuit states.
In late March, the case states, Vail announced on its website that all of its North American ski resorts and resort stores would be closed for the rest of the 2019-2020 season as COVID-19 “rages throughout the world.” The suit alleges that in the wake of the mass closure, the defendant has failed to issue refunds to any customers for lost mountain access, choosing instead to simply defer auto-renewal charges for those with annual passes who did not pre-pay for the entire season. For customers who purchased Epic Day Passes, the defendant has explicitly stated that such are “non-refundable and non-transferable to another season,” the lawsuit alleges.
The plaintiff says he purchased in June 2019 an annual Tahoe Local season pass for $499 that promised mountain access between October 2019 and June 2020 “as long as there was snow.” Despite cutting his mountain access short in response to coronavirus concerns, the defendant has retained the full amount of the plaintiff’s annual pass fee, the lawsuit claims. The plaintiff avers he purchased Vail’s annual pass “with the understanding” that he would be able to access the company’s resorts for the duration of the season, and claims he would not have purchased the annual pass, or would not have paid for it under the same terms, had he known he would be unable to access Vail’s mountain resorts.
The case argues that proposed class members—those who purchased annual or Epic Day Passes for the 2019-2020 season and had not used all the remaining days on their passes by March 25, 2020—have received “zero consideration or compensation” from Vail for the unused mountain access for which they paid. In turn, the defendant has allegedly retained hundreds of thousands of dollars that the case argues should have been refunded to customers.
The lawsuit, alleging violations of several California statutes, claims the defendant has misled customers, falsely advertised its services, maintained an unlawful business practice, and breached its warranties with consumers, among other apparent abuses.
The full complaint can be read below.
ClassAction.org’s coverage of lawsuits centered on the COVID-19 pandemic can be found here and over at our Newswire.
Get class action news sent to your inbox—sign up for ClassAction.org’s newsletter here.
Before commenting, please review our comment policy.