| Case and Cite |
Jurisdiction |
Summary |
| 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. |
© Copyright Krohn & Moss Ltd.
All rights reserved.
