There seem to me to be three separate issues in play in this thread.
1. Voluntary Warranty or Manufacturer’s Warranty.
This is the one written by the manufacturers and sets out what they will and won’t fix and the period of coverage. These often are different in different markets and countries though also usually similar. The manufacturer or their representative company will honour the warranty provided the claim is covered by those terms.
2. Statutory Warranty.
Most countries these days have consumer protection laws and in some cases, spell out a reseller’s obligation covering product descriptions, being fit for purpose, of merchantable quality, and should be in good working order for a reasonable period. Who covers this Warranty is dependant on the country’s laws, but can be the reseller, the manufacturer or distributor. The Australian Consumer Law, for example is the responsibility of the reseller, though in the end, the manufacturer or distributor will usually withstand the loss or provide the support to the reseller. But in the case of the weatherproofing as discussed here, there is a third issue.
3. Misleading conduct under Consumer Protection Laws.
Apart from the warranties above, again, almost all countries, consumer laws protect the public from resellers and manufacturers from conducting misleading and deceptive conduct. In Australia, these laws are quite specific and strongly in favour of the consumer. I would contend that given the marketing of Olympus using both descriptions and depiction of the conditions in marketing photographs, that simply refusing to warrant a claim because moisture has gotten inside would be unlawful. Of course, if the consumer was negligent say by careless operation such as changing a lens in the rain or leaving doors open then Olympus should have the right to payment for repairs. But they would need to have evidence that this was the case and not simply rely on saying that the water could only enter through misuse. Though that may in fact be the case and may be demonstrable. I would think that water ingress is highly unlikely unless negligent operation was actual. Otherwise, Olympus would have many claims and these forums would be full of them. From what I’ve seen of the DPReview tests some time ago for Nikon, Canon, Sony and Olympus in the wet, Olympus had the best weather sealing with Sony a long last. Their weather resistance was terrible and I would not be too keen on using a Sony in a shower.
Anyhow, I hope the foregoing somewhat explains that for most of us, the continuing debate about what Olympus would or wouldn’t do seems argumentative rather than any real basis in facts. And if anyone presented a camera for repair from water damage and used correctly, then you would have a good case to seek assistance from your local consumer affairs agency to take Olympus to task if they declined the repair no matter what their warranty states.
John
