|
Case and Cite |
Jurisdiction |
Summary |
|
John Kellermeier v. Ford Motor Company (August
05, 2009)
|
Florida
|
Ted Greene of Krohn & Moss, Ltd. prevailed over two of Ford Motor Company's top trial attorneys in a three day jury trial in Ft. Myers, Florida over a lemon law case. On July 23, 2009, Ford was ordered by the jury to pay John Kellermeier damages to the tune of $33,610 concerning a 2005 Ford F250 Super Duty truck with a recalcitrant transmission issue.
I was a very proud man when I signed the ownership papers for my new 2005 Ford F250 Super Duty truck” the consumer told Ted Greene of Krohn & Moss, Ltd. “Within six weeks my euphoria disappeared as the vehicle started flailing with transmission problems”. The consumer brought it back for three repairs with increasing apprehension within the first 5,200 miles. Ford rebuilt the entire transmission for the vehicle on the third visit and pronounced it "repaired".
Click here to read more.
|
|
Isip v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC
|
California
|
Ms. Isip purchase a new 2004 Mercedes C320WZ from Caliber Motors in June 2004 for $36,172.09. She began to experienceproblems with the vehicle stalling when in reverse at 3986 miles. At that time, she also experienced issues with a clunking noise from the rear of the vehicle when in reverse and a strong odor from the air conditioning. Despite repair attempts made by Mercedes’ dealers for these concerns, Ms. Isip was required to return to Mercedes’ dealers on at least seven occasions for various problems with her vehicle, including an engine knock, the vehicle overheating, and a thumping from the transmission from putting the vehicle into gear. The case proceeded to trial in Los Angeles County in March 2006. Defendant, Mercedes-Benz, argued that the problems Ms. Isip experienced with the vehicle were not substantial and did not rise to the level of a defect. The jury awarded Ms. Isip $20,000.00 and allowed her to keep the vehicle.
|
|
Mayberry v. Volkswagen of America, Inc.,--- N.W.2d ----, 2005 WL 356477 (February
16, 2005)
|
Wisconsin Supreme Court
|
Wisconsin consumer brought claims against the manufacturer under the Magnuson-Moss
Warranty Act for breach of warranty, but after filing the complaint, she traded-in
the vehicle. The trial court dismissed her action based solely on the amount the
consumer received on trade and the consumer appealed. The Court of Appeals, 271
Wis.2d 258, 678 N.W.2d 357, reversed and remanded. Review was granted by the Wisconsin
Supreme Court. In a unanimous (7-0) decision, the Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed
the reversal of the trial court holding that allegations that buyer resold the vehicle
for more than its fair market value and that the buyer drove the vehicle extensively
before reselling it did not preclude the buyer from establishing damages for breach
of warranty.
|
|
Hyundai Motors America v. Goodin--- N.E.2d ----, 2005 WL 407529 (February
22, 2005)
|
Indiana Supreme Court
|
Indiana consumer brought claims against the manufacturer under the Magnuson-Moss
Warranty Act for breach of implied warranty. After prevailing at trial, the manufacturer
appealed. The Court of Appeals, 804 N.E.2d 775, reversed the jury’s verdict
finding that the consumer lacked “privity” or a direct contractual relationship
with the manufacturer to bring such a claim. Review was granted by the Indiana Supreme
Court. In a unanimous (5-0) decision, the Indiana Supreme Court reinstated the jury’s
verdict holding that a consumer may sue a manufacturer for economic loss based on
a breach of implied warranty even if the consumer purchased the product from a car
dealer or other intermediary in the distribution chain. In doing so, the Wisconsin
Supreme Court abolished the traditional requirement of “privity.”
|
|
Dekelaita v. Nissan Motor Corp. in USA, 343 Ill.App.3d 801, 799 N.E.2d 367,
278 Ill.Dec. 649, Ill.App. 1 Dist., Sep 29, 2003
|
Illinois Court of Appeals |
Illinois automobile lessees sued Nissan under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act for
breach of warranty. The trial court dismissed the action finding that as lessees
the consumers were not entitled to the protections of the Act. The Court of Appeals
reversed finding that consumer lessees had standing to bring claims under the Warranty
Act for breach of warranty.
|
|
Miller v. William Chevrolet/GEO, Inc., 326 Ill.App.3d 642, 762 N.E.2d 1,
260 Ill.Dec. 735, Ill.App. 1 Dist., Sep 28, 2001
|
Illinois Court of Appeals
|
Illinois consumer sued dealership for consumer fraud based on the dealerships misrepresentation
that the vehicle was “executive” driven when in fact it was previously
a car rental. The trial court dismissed the consumer’s action finding that
Defendant’s activities were not fraudulent. The Court of Appeals reversed,
holding that factual issues existed as to whether the dealership knew of automobile's
prior history as rental vehicle, whether that prior history was material fact that
dealership was required to disclose, and whether dealership intended that buyer
rely on suppression of that prior history in deciding whether to buy car.
|
|
McDonald v. Mazda Motors of America, Inc., 269 Ga.App. 62, 603 S.E.2d 456,
54 UCC Rep.Serv.2d 579, 4 FCDR 2697, Ga.App., Aug 10, 2004
|
Georgia Court of Appeals
|
Georgia consumer brought breach of warranty action against Mazda for unreasonable
delay in making or attempting to make repairs. The trial court granted summary judgment
in favor of the manufacturer and the car buyer appealed. The Georgia Court of Appeals
reversed the trial court and held that issues of material fact existed as to whether
Mazda repaired the vehicle within a “reasonable time” and as to whether
or not there were latent defects which the car buyer could not discover at the time
of sale.
|
|
Razor v. Hyundai Motor America, 349 Ill.App.3d 651, 813 N.E.2d 247, 286 Ill.Dec.
190, 54 UCC Rep.Serv.2d 737, Ill.App. 1 Dist., Jun 16, 2004
|
Illinois Court of Appeals
|
Illinois consumer brought a breach of warranty action against Hyundai. The trial
court entered judgment on the jury’s verdict for the consumer and the manufacturer
appealed. The trial court’s judgment was affirmed and the Illinois Appellate
Court held that factual issues existed for the jury to determine the computation
of damages, whether or not any defects existed in the vehicle, whether or not the
vehicle was repaired in a reasonable time, and whether or not the vehicle was merchantable.
|
|
Lemons v. Showcase Motors, Inc., 207 Ariz. 537, 88 P.3d 1149, 2004-1 Trade
Cases P 74,399, 424 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 17, Ariz.App. Div. 1, Apr 29, 2004
|
Arizona Court of Appeals
|
Arizona used car buyer brought action against dealership for breach of implied warranty
of merchantability under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. The trial court granted
summary judgment finding that despite the purchase of a service contract that the
car was purchased “as-is.” The Arizona Court of Appeals reversed finding
that genuine issue of material fact as to whether the dealership was a party to
the service contract precluded summary judgment due to the Act’s prohibition
of the disclaimer of implied warranties where service contracts are issued within
90 days of purchase.
|
|
Pearson v. Daimler Chrysler Corp., 349 Ill.App.3d 688, 813 N.E.2d 230, 286
Ill.Dec. 173, 2004-1 Trade Cases P 74,366, 53 UCC Rep.Serv.2d 18, Ill.App. 1 Dist.,
Mar 31, 2004
|
Illinois Court of Appeals
|
An Illinois car owner and Illinois car lessee each brought separate suits against
DaimlerChrysler Corporation for breach of warranty. In both suits, the trial courts
failed to apply a “reasonableness” standard when assessing whether or
not the manufacturer lived up to its obligations to repair. The Illinois Court of
Appeals reversed both cases finding that it is up to the trier of fact to determine
whether or not repairs to a vehicle were made within a “reasonable time”
or “reasonable number of attempts. ” |
|
Mayberry v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., 271 Wis.2d 258, 678 N.W.2d 357,
2004-1 Trade Cases P 74,304, 52 UCC Rep.Serv.2d 912, 2004 WI App 64, Wis.App., Feb
24, 2004
|
Wisconsin Court of Appeals
|
Wisconsin consumer brought claims against the manufacturer under Magnuson-Moss Warranty
Act for breach of warranty, but after filing the complaint, she traded-in the vehicle.
The trial court dismissed her action based solely on the amount the consumer received
on trade. The Court of Appeals reversed holding that the fact the buyer traded-in
the vehicle for fair market value did not affect the consumer’s claims for
damages that are measured at the “time and place of acceptance” pursuant
to the Uniform Commercial Code.
|
|
Bartow v. Ford Motor Co., 342 Ill.App.3d 480, 794 N.E.2d 1027, 276 Ill.Dec.
777, 2003-2 Trade Cases P 74,113, 51 UCC Rep.Serv.2d 722, Ill.App. 1 Dist., Jul
31, 2003
|
Illinois Court of Appeals
|
Illinois automobile buyer brought action under Magnuson-Moss Act to recover damages
for breach of written and implied warranties. The manufacturer brought a motion
to dismiss alleging that the buyers lacked standing and did not have damages because
they had traded-in their vehicle. The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of the
motion to dismiss and held that the fact that buyer traded in the vehicle was of
no consequence to the base measure of damages under the Act and that the buyer was
still allowed to recover damages for the portion of time during which she was entitled
to enforce the warranty.
|
|
Peterson v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., 272 Wis.2d 676, 679 N.W.2d 840,
2004 WI App 76, Wis.App., Mar 31, 2004
|
Wisconsin Court of Appeals
|
Wisconsin consumer lessee brought action against Volkswagen under the Magnuson-Moss
Act alleging breach of warranty. The trial court dismissed the consumer’s
action finding that “leased” vehicles are not covered by the Act. The
Wisconsin Court of Appeals disagreed and reversed the trial court ’s order.
|
|
Daimler Chrysler Corp. v. Franklin, 814 N.E.2d 281, Ind.App., Aug 30, 2004
|
Indiana Court of Appeals
|
Indiana car buyer brought action against manufacturer for breach of warranty and
for violation of the Indiana Lemon Law. After the car buyer prevailed at a jury
trial, the manufacturer appealed from an earlier order denying its motion to compel
arbitration. The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the jury’s verdict and
held that the manufacturer could not force buyer to arbitrate claims pursuant to
contract between the buyer and dealership as the manufacturer was not a party to
the arbitration provision. The Appellate Court allowed the buyer to recover his
attorneys ’ fees on appeal.
|
|
Esmurdoc v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 2004 WL 2347566, 29 Fla. L. Weekly D2343,
Fla.App. 3 Dist., Oct 20, 2004
|
Florida Court of Appeals
|
Florida consumer appealed decision of trial court ordering that the consumer’s
case be referred to arbitration. The Florida Court of Appeals reversed the trial
court finding that the manufacturer, DaimlerChrysler Corporation, was neither a
party to the contract containing the arbitration clause nor a third-party beneficiary
of the arbitration clause.
|
|
Mekertichian v. Mercedes-Benz U.S.A., L.L.C. ,347 Ill.App.3d 828, 807 N.E.2d
1165, 283 Ill.Dec. 324, Ill.App. 1 Dist., Mar 31, 2004
|
Illinois Court of Appeals
|
Mercedes-Benz USA appealed an order denying its motion to dismiss the consumer’s
claim for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability due to a so-called lack
of “privity” between the consumer and car manufacturer. The Appellate
Court affirmed the trial court finding that that lack of vertical privity between
consumer and manufacturer did not preclude claim under Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act
for breach of implied warranties.
|
|
Check v. Clifford Chrysler-Plymouth of Buffalo Grove, Inc.,
|
Illinois Court of Appeals
|
Illinois consumer brought action under the Consumer Fraud Act and Magnuson-Moss
Warranty Act for car dealer’s failure to disclose and timely remedy pre-sale
damage to a “new” Jeep Cherokee. Although the buyer’s award of
punitive damages was reversed by the Court of Appeals, the Court of Appeals upheld
the compensatory damages and recognized that there was sufficient evidence to support
a finding that the dealer committed a deceptive business practice by failing to
disclose and subsequently misleading the consumer about pre-existing damage to his
vehicle. The Court of Appeals affirmed the award of attorneys’ fees and remanded
the case for the consumer to recover his attorneys ’ fees on appeal. |
|
Lara v. Hyundai Motor America, 331 Ill.App.3d 53, 770 N.E.2d 721, 264 Ill.Dec.
416, 47 UCC Rep.Serv.2d 1379, Ill.App. 2 Dist., May 29, 2002
|
Illinois Court of Appeals
|
Illinois Car buyer brought action against manufacturer for breach of warranty after
the car buyer had voluntary surrendered possession of the vehicle to the buyer’s
lender. The trial court granted summary judgment finding that the buyer’s
failure to be able to return the vehicle lien free to the manufacturer precluded
claims for breach of written warranty under the Act and that the Defendant’s
disclaimer of consequential damages prohibited the same. The Illinois Court of Appeals
reversed the order of the trial court finding that under the Warranty Act the buyer
was not required to return car as condition for bringing action on express warranty,
and that because facts existed to demonstrate the manufacturer’s warranty
failed of its essential purpose, that the manufacturer’s disclaimer of consequential
damages was not absolute.
|
|
Neeld v. American Isuzu Motors, Inc.,2004 WL 2715919, 2004-Ohio-6358, Ohio
App. 10 Dist., Nov 30, 2004
|
Ohio Court of Appeals
|
Ohio consumers brought action arising out of their lease and use of a 2001 Isuzu
Rodeo. After successfully winning a jury trial, Isuzu appealed. In affirming the
court’s entry of judgment on the jury verdict, the Ohio Court of Appeals noted
that the evidence presented by the consumers was sufficient for reasonable minds
to conclude that a non-conformity in the vehicle had been proven. Further, the Court
of Appeals held that the diminished resale value of the vehicle was a "nonconformity"
under the law that substantially impaired the use, value, or safety of the vehicle
to the consumer.
|
|
Jones v. William Buick, Inc., 337 Ill.App.3d 339, 785 N.E.2d 910, 271 Ill.Dec.
716, Ill.App. 1 Dist., Feb 03, 2003
|
Illinois Court of Appeals
|
Illinois consumer whose application for car loan was rejected, brought action under
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act alleging that dealer's failure
to promptly return down payment constituted fraud. The trial court granted summary
judgment for car dealer, and the Appellate Court reversed finding that the dealer's
eventual refund of down payment did not preclude a claim for fraud under the Act.
|
|
Marrale v. Gwinnett Place Ford,--- S.E.2d ----, 2005 WL 109028, Ga.App.,
Jan 20, 2005
|
Georgia Court of Appeals
|
Georgia consumer brought action against dealership, claiming fraud and violation
of the Fair Business Practices Act (FBPA) arising from his purchase of a used automobile
that the dealership represented had never been in an accident. The trial court granted
dealership's summary judgment motion. Buyer appealed and the trial court’s
order dismissing the claim under the FBPA was reversed as genuine issue of material
fact as to whether salesman's misrepresentation about car's accident-free condition
constituted fraud. Further, the Georgia Court of Appeals recognized that the sale
of the vehicle by the dealer was a transaction within the consumer marketplace for
purposes of the FBPA claim.
|
|
Melton v. Frigidaire, 346 Ill.App.3d 331, 805 N.E.2d 322, 281 Ill.Dec. 954,
Ill.App. 1 Dist., Feb 24, 2004
|
Illinois Court of Appeals
|
Illinois consumer who entered into settlement agreement with refrigerator manufacturer
sought attorney fees as the prevailing party. The trial court awarded attorneys’
fees based on the parties’ agreement that the trial court may decide this
issue. The refrigerator manufacturer appealed the award of attorneys’ fees
and the Court of Appeals affirmed the fee award finding that parties’ agreement
made the consumer a "prevailing party," for purposes of the Magnuson-Moss
Warranty Act. The Court of Appeals remanded for the consumer to recover her attorneys’
fees on appeal, as well.
|
|
Mrugala v. Fairfield Ford, Inc., 325 Ill.App.3d 484, 758 N.E.2d 423, 259
Ill.Dec. 300, Ill.App. 1 Dist., Sep 28, 2001
|
Illinois Court of Appeals
|
After Illinois consumer prevailed at arbitration against car dealer and neither
party rejected the award, the trial court modified the arbitrators’ award
requiring the consumer to surrender possession of his vehicle. The Court of Appeals
reversed finding that the trial court lacked jurisdiction and authority to modify
the award.
|
|
Paige v. Hyundai Motor America, Inc.,--- S.E.2d ----, 2005 WL 22962, Ga.App.,
Jan 06, 2005
|
Georgia Court of Appeals
|
Georgia consumers brought action against auto manufacturer alleging breach of warranty
under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. The trial court granted summary judgment in
favor of the auto manufacturer for allegedly failing to participate in the manufacturer’s
informal dispute program. The car buyers appealed and the Court of Appeals reversed
holding that there was not conclusive evidence that the car buyers did not participate
in the arbitration program in good faith.
|
|
Stone v. Clifford Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 333 Ill.App.3d 363, 775 N.E.2d
92, 266 Ill.Dec. 530, Ill.App. 1 Dist., Aug 02, 2002
|
Illinois Court of Appeals
|
Illinois consumer brought action asserting claims of consumer fraud against a dealership
for misrepresenting that the vehicle was new and for failing to advise the consumer
that the vehicle had been involved in an accident before purchase. The Appellate
Court reversed the entry of summary judgment against the consumer and found that
issues of fact existed as to whether or not Defendant was under a duty to disclose
the pre-existing damage to the vehicle.
|