Lemon Law - Case Summaries
Ferraro vs Ford Motor Co: Largest Lemon Law Verdict in California
Case: (Case ID Confidential) #1
Case: (Case ID Confidential) #2
Case: (Case ID Confidential) #3
Case: (Case ID Confidential) #4
Case: (Case ID Confidential) #5
Case: (Case ID Confidential) #6
Case: (Case ID Confidential) #7
Case: (Case ID Confidential) #8
Case: (Case ID Confidential) #9
Robert F. Brennan, Esq.
Robert F. Brennan obtained what was for many years the largest “lemon law” verdict in California history. This verdict has been surpassed only once since that time. Here is a Riverside press release for Ferraro/Park City v. Ford, where Mr. Brennan obtained a total judgment of over $700,000.00 against Ford Motor Co.
The preceding testimonials or endorsements does not constitute a guarantee, warranty or prediction regarding the outcome of your legal matter.
02:02 AM PST on Tuesday, November 2, 2004 The Press-Enterprise
RIVERSIDE - A jury ruled Monday morning on behalf of a Dallas man who sued Ford Motor Company Inc. in a lemon-law case in Riverside County Superior Court.
The man, Tim Ferraro, bought a Lincoln Town Car at a Corona company that was later dropped from the lawsuit.
The jury awarded Ferraro's company $500,000 in damages in a case tried in Judge Dallas Holmes' courtroom. Ferraro bought the car in 1998 in Corona for about $60,000. It was for a limousine service he started with his wife. But Ferraro said he spent thousands of dollars in repair bills for electrical woes and suspension problems. He tried to sell it, but nobody wanted it after discovering its repair history.
"I'm extremely happy for my clients," said Robert Francis Brennan, a La Crescenta attorney specializing in lemon-law cases. "They went through six years of torment. This car was a piece of junk."
An attorney representing Ford, Robert McPhail of Bowman & Brooke in Torrance, did not return a call for comment.
Brennan said the jury could consider up to three times the total sum of the car's worth, money spent in repairs and the Ferraros' lost fares in making its monetary decision.
TYPE OF CASE: VEHICLE FRAUD
CONFIDENTIAL: YES
AMOUNT: TOTAL AMOUNT OF SETTLEMENT: $ 64,000
ATTORNEYS: PLAINTIFF: ROBERT F. BRENNAN, ADDRESS AS ABOVE
EXPERTS: PLAINTIFF: TIM SAURWEIN
DEFENSE: Unknown
FACTS OF CASE:
Plaintiff leased a vehicle from defendants. Plaintiff had numerous mechanical problems, especially with brakes. Plaintiff discovered that the vehicle had been involved in an accident prior to its being sold to him. Dealer repaired the vehicle then sold the vehicle as new to plaintiff without disclosure of the prior damage.
PLAINTIFF’S CONTENTIONS:
That dealer did not disclose the accident damage and that had the damage been disclosed he would not have purchased the vehicle.
DEFENSE CONTENTIONS:
Defense contended that the vehicle was never in an accident. The repair order discovered by plaintiff was false. According to their expert the damage noted on the repair order did not match any vehicle damage.
DAMAGES:
SETTLEMENT DISCUSSIONS:
TYPE OF CASE: SONG-BEVERLY CONSUMER WARRANTY ACT
CONFIDENTIAL: No
AMOUNT: TOTAL AMOUNT OF SETTLEMENT: $ 154,349.24
GENERAL AND SPECIAL DAMAGES: $ 31,000
OTHER: $123,349.24
ATTORNEYS: PLAINTIFF: ROBERT F. BRENNAN, ADDRESS AS ABOVE
EXPERTS: PLAINTIFF: TIMOTHY SAURWEIN, AUTOMOTIVE TECHNOLOGY, TUJUNGA.
DEFENSE: BRETT PATE, EMPLOYEE OF CONNELL CHEVROLET, DEALER PRACTICES; MICHAEL PARKER, AUTOMOTIVE MECHANICS, IRVINE.
FACTS OF CASE:
Plaintiffs Rick and Lisa Benjamin purchased a 1997 conversion van from Connell Chevrolet in late 1996. The van was a General Motors conversion van, and the conversion had been done by Travel Quest. Plaintiffs' family could not use the van because the seat belts were too uncomfortable. Defendants tried to fix the vehicle on several occasions, but could not remedy the seat belt problems. The seat belts were excessively tight and would grind into the necks of passengers in the middle and rear seats of the van. Plaintiffs also contended that some of defendants' repairs made the seat height of the front seats dangerous. Finally, plaintiffs contended that Travel Quest had used inferior, sub-grade hardware in the van conversion. Defendants contended that there were no problems with the vehicle, and that its responses to plaintiffs' complaints were effective and appropriate.
PLAINTIFF’S CONTENTIONS:
DEFENSE CONTENTIONS:
DAMAGES:
PURCHASE PRICE PLUS INCIDENTAL DAMAGES OF $31,000.00.
SETTLEMENT DISCUSSIONS:
Plaintiffs settled with two other defendants for a combined sum of $8,501.00 prior to trial. At trial, Travel Quest offered to settle for a waiver of costs, and Connell offered to settle for approximately $15,000.00. Plaintiffs rejected these offers.
OTHER INFORMATION:
The jury found that Connell Chevrolet had breached its implied warranty of merchantability, in that it had promised to fix the seat belts from the very date of purchase, yet had failed to do so. The jury assessed the full damages against Connell Chevrolet. The jury returned a defense verdict in favor of Travel Quest. However, under the Song-Beverly act, there is a Statutory Indemnity provision whereby Connell could seek indemnity against Travel Quest. In a subsequent non-jury trial, the court ruled in favor of Connell on its indemnity claim against Travel Quest, and entered judgment against Travel Quest for the full amount of plaintiffs' damages, costs, fees and expenses.
The preceding testimonials or endorsements does not constitute a guarantee, warranty or prediction regarding the outcome of your legal matter.
TYPE OF CASE: Lemon Law (Song-Beverly)
CONFIDENTIAL: YES
Confidential as to amount only
AMOUNT: TOTAL AMOUNT OF SETTLEMENT: $ 13,515 plus loan payoff
ATTORNEYS: PLAINTIFF: ROBERT F. BRENNAN, ADDRESS AS ABOVE
EXPERTS: PLAINTIFF: Tim Saurwein
DEFENSE: Unknown
FACTS OF CASE:
This was a lemon law situation. The vehicle had numerous serious defects making it unsafe and unreliable transportation.
PLAINTIFF’S CONTENTIONS:
Vehicle had serious defects and was very unsafe to drive. Plaintiff stopped driving the vehicle and had to purchase another vehicle for transportation.
DEFENSE CONTENTIONS:
The vehicle had no serious defects, plaintiff still driving vehicle.
DAMAGES:
$13,515 plus payoff of the loan.
SETTLEMENT DISCUSSIONS:
Settlement achieved a court-appointed mediation.
The preceding testimonials or endorsements does not constitute a guarantee, warranty or prediction regarding the outcome of your legal matter.
Verdict Report (February 26, 1998)
Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act
Verdict: $37,776.00 (gross), $34,820.00 (net after Song-Beverly mileage offset), civil penalty of $45,000.00, plus attorney’s fees and costs to plaintiffs.
Case Name: Pamela Dompe v. Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc.
Trial Time: 6 days.
Attorneys:
Plaintiff’s Counsel: Robert F. Brennan, Esq., Glendale
Defendant’s Counsel: Gregg Audet, Esq., BANNAN, SMITH, GREENE, FRANK & RIMAC, for defendant MERCEDES-BENZ OF NORTH AMERICA, INC.
Defendant:
Automotive Mechanics, Mercedes-Benz of North America.
FACTS:
On April 14, 1994, plaintiff purchased a 1994 Mercedes-Benz C 280, with a Mercedes-Benz limited warranty for 48 months or 50,000 miles. Beginning almost immediately, she began to experience problems with the car of various kinds. In April of 1994, she complained of the vehicle pulling to the right. She complained to Mercedes dealerships on several occasions about odd noises, various electrical problems, engine complaints and various fit and finish items. She also complained that the vehicle’s ABS system did not bring the car to a stop within a reasonable distance. As she owned the car for a longer period, the engine and cooling system began manifesting various problems, including recurring oil leaks and engine coolant leaks. The vehicle’s entire cooling system was replaced at one time or another. In all, plaintiff had taken the car in for repairs at Mercedes dealerships a total of over 20 times as of the trial date. While she owned the car, she had three or four minor collisions, all of which were repaired.
CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiff contended that the subject vehicle, a first year production model, suffered from several recurring problems which had not been remedied by Mercedes-Benz and its dealerships within a reasonable number of attempts. Mercedes contended that the car had been repaired in all particulars, and that plaintiff’s problems were not substantial as they did not prevent her from driving the vehicle. Defendant also contended that the collisions may have caused some or all of the engine problems with the vehicle, and had substantially impaired the value and appearance of the vehicle.
DAMAGES:
Plaintiff’s purchase price of $37,776.00, plus civil penalty of up to treble damages.
The preceding testimonials or endorsements does not constitute a guarantee, warranty or prediction regarding the outcome of your legal matter.
TYPE OF CASE: Lemon Law (Song-Beverly)
CONFIDENTIAL: YES
AMOUNT: TOTAL AMOUNT OF SETTLEMENT: $ 46,000
ATTORNEYS: PLAINTIFF: ROBERT F. BRENNAN, ADDRESS AS ABOVE
EXPERTS: PLAINTIFF: Tim Saurwein
DEFENSE: Unknown
FACTS OF CASE:
This was a lemon law situation. The vehicle had numerous serious defects making it unsafe and unreliable transportation.
PLAINTIFF’S CONTENTIONS:
Vehicle had serious defects and was very unsafe to drive. Plaintiff stopped driving the vehicle and had to purchase another vehicle for transportation. Plaintiff purchased the vehicle new and had ongoing problems with it. She returned it to the dealer numerous times but the dealer could not fix it.
DEFENSE CONTENTIONS:
The vehicle had no serious defects. Defense also claimed that the vehicle could be repaired.
DAMAGES:
$46,000
SETTLEMENT DISCUSSIONS:
Numerous settlement discussions between the parties, eventually settled for a full buy-back plus attorney fees.
The preceding testimonials or endorsements does not constitute a guarantee, warranty or prediction regarding the outcome of your legal matter.
TYPE OF CASE: Auto Fraud
CONFIDENTIAL: YES
AMOUNT: TOTAL AMOUNT OF SETTLEMENT: $ 18,000
ATTORNEYS: PLAINTIFF: ROBERT F. BRENNAN, ADDRESS AS ABOVE
EXPERTS: PLAINTIFF: Tim Saurwein
DEFENSE: Unknown
FACTS OF CASE:
plaintiff leased a new vehicle and subsequently found that the vehicle had sustained accident damage prior to its sale and which was undisclosed to plaintiff.
PLAINTIFF’S CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiff leased a new vehicle and subsequently found that the vehicle had sustained accident damage prior to its sale and which was undisclosed to plaintiff.
DEFENSE CONTENTIONS:
Denied damages; denied disclosure requirements.
DAMAGES:
Apprx. $10,000
SETTLEMENT DISCUSSIONS:
SETTLED AT MEDIATION; MEDIATOR JEFF KRIVIS
The preceding testimonials or endorsements does not constitute a guarantee, warranty or prediction regarding the outcome of your legal matter.
TYPE OF CASE: Lemon Law (Song-Beverly)
CONFIDENTIAL: YES
AMOUNT: TOTAL AMOUNT OF SETTLEMENT: $ 27,000 plus rescission of lease.
ATTORNEYS: PLAINTIFF: ROBERT F. BRENNAN, ADDRESS AS ABOVE
EXPERTS: PLAINTIFF: Tim Saurwein
DEFENSE: Unknown
FACTS OF CASE:
This was a lemon law situation. Plaintiff leased a new vehicle. The vehicle had numerous serious defects, including malfunctioning brakes and engine, making it unsafe and unreliable transportation. The car had to be towed several times.
PLAINTIFF’S CONTENTIONS:
Vehicle had serious defects and was very unsafe to drive. Plaintiff contended the vehicle was a lemon, and the defects diminished the use, value and safety of the vehicle.
DEFENSE CONTENTIONS:
Denied all Plaintiff's allegations.
DAMAGES:
$27,000 plus the balance of the lease.
SETTLEMENT DISCUSSIONS:
Numerous settlement discussions between the parties, eventually settled for a full buy-back plus attorney fees.
The preceding testimonials or endorsements does not constitute a guarantee, warranty or prediction regarding the outcome of your legal matter.
TYPE OF CASE: VEHICLE FRAUD
CONFIDENTIAL: YES
AMOUNT: TOTAL AMOUNT OF SETTLEMENT: $ 120,000
ATTORNEYS: PLAINTIFF: ROBERT F. BRENNAN, ADDRESS AS ABOVE
EXPERTS: PLAINTIFF: DAVID STIVERS, GREGORY BARNETT
DEFENSE: Unknown
FACTS OF CASE:
Plaintiff purchased a vehicle from defendant car dealer for about $18,000.00. At the time of purchase it was not disclosed to plaintiff that the vehicle had previously been sold to another customer who did not qualify for the financing. The vehicle was involved in an accident and abandoned at an auto body shop where it was repaired and repossessed by the selling dealer, and subsequently sold to plaintiff. The estimated cost of repairs to the vehicle was approximately $7000.
PLAINTIFF’S CONTENTIONS:
That dealer should have disclosed the accident damage, and that, had plaintiff known of the damage, he would not have purchased the vehicle.
DEFENSE CONTENTIONS:
DAMAGES:
Apprx. $18,000
SETTLEMENT DISCUSSIONS:
MEDIATION BEFORE THE HON. MICHAEL BERG OF ALTERNATIVE RESOLUTION CENTER
The preceding testimonials or endorsements does not constitute a guarantee, warranty or prediction regarding the outcome of your legal matter.
TYPE OF CASE: AUTO FRAUD
CONFIDENTIAL: YES
AMOUNT: TOTAL AMOUNT OF SETTLEMENT: $ 60,000
ATTORNEYS: PLAINTIFF: ROBERT F. BRENNAN, ADDRESS AS ABOVE
EXPERTS: PLAINTIFF: MIKE DE LA PENA
DEFENSE: Unknown
FACTS OF CASE: Dealer purchased a vehicle from a private person who disclosed that the vehicle had been in an accident prior to the sale. While dealer attempted to have work done under the warranty at a dealership, the warranty claim was denied as the vehicle's title had been branded as salvaged, and it was made known to dealer that the vehicle had been involved in a roll-over accident. Dealer then sold the vehicle to plaintiff without disclosing that the vehicle's warranty had been canceled, that the vehicle had been in a prior accident, and that the title had been branded as salvaged.
PLAINTIFF’S CONTENTIONS: As above.
DEFENSE CONTENTIONS:That dealer was unaware that the vehicle had been in an accident prior to its sale to plaintiff.
DAMAGES:
SETTLEMENT DISCUSSIONS:
The preceding testimonials or endorsements does not constitute a guarantee, warranty or prediction regarding the outcome of your legal matter.
Verdict Report (September 19, 1997)
Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act
Verdict: $39,988.68, plus costs and attorney’s fees.
Case Name: Magit v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc.
Attorneys:
Plaintiff’s Counsel: Robert F. Brennan, Esq.
Defendant’s Counsel: Manuel Saldana, Esq., of Bronson, Bronson & McKinnon.
FACTS:
Plaintiff purchased a 1993 Toyota Landcruiser in December of 1992 for $40,138.53. Beginning in January of 1993, plaintiff began experiencing water leaking into the passenger cabin of the vehicle during rainstorms. Plaintiff did not experience water leakage during most routine car washes, but did on one occasion. Plaintiff and her minor son suffered allergies which were aggravated by molds and mildew, and the fluid leakage caused moldy smells in the passenger cabin.
TOYOTA and its dealers, Mike Miller Toyota and Sheridan Toyota, undertook repair efforts on the vehicle for the water leakage on four to five occasions during the first year, and on several occasions thereafter. While plaintiff admitted that the repairs improved the car’s water leakage problem, she testified that the car continued to get wet in the passenger cabin during rainstorms.
Plaintiff continued to drive the car as she had no alternative transportation. At the time of trial, plaintiff had compiled approximately 75,000 miles on the car. Defendant TOYOTA undertook various repairs to the sunroof, the rocker panel and the drainage system leading from the sunroof to the rocker panel, but plaintiff’s complaints persisted. TOYOTA claimed it could not duplicate the problem, but plaintiff produced evidence that at least two TOYOTA-trained technicians from the dealerships, Gary Myers and Tom Golden, had confirmed the existence of the problem.
TOYOTA’s expert Michael Houghtling conducted a vehicle inspection, during which it sprayed water from a hose on to the car’s outer surface for 30 to 45 minutes, and then ran the car through a car wash, but this testing did not reveal the existence of the leaks into the passenger cabin. Plaintiff also complained of excessive brake wear on the vehicle, resulting in the need to replace brake pads and rotors at very frequent intervals. TOYOTA contended that the brake wear shown by the evidence was not abnormal, particularly for a TOYOTA Landcruiser.
CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiff contended that TOYOTA breached its written warranty and the implied warranty of merchantability, and thus breached its obligations to her under the Song-Beverly Act. Defendant TOYOTA contended that the car’s water leakage problem had been repaired not later than March of 1994, and that the car was defect-free thereafter. TOYOTA also contended that the car was in merchantable condition as of the time that it contends that it repaired the water leakage problem. TOYOTA also contended that the brake wear on the vehicle was not abnormal. Finally, TOYOTA contended that the plaintiff had not been damaged because she had driven the car for 75,000 miles.
DAMAGES:
Plaintiff sought restitution of her purchase price under the Song-Beverly Act, in the amount of $40,138.53. Plaintiff also sought a civil penalty of $10,000.00 under Song-Beverly. The jury did not award a civil penalty.
The preceding testimonials or endorsements does not constitute a guarantee, warranty or prediction regarding the outcome of your legal matter.
Settlement Report (January 5, 1998)
Federal Odometer Act; Consumer Legal Remedies Act
Settlement: $28,700.00
Case Name: Plaintiff v. Dealer
Attorneys:
Plaintiff’s Counsel: Robert F. Brennan, Esq., Glendale.
Defendant’s Counsel: Lauren Bullock, Esq., Los Angeles
FACTS:
On April 13, 1996, Plaintiff purchased a 1991 Toyota Pickup "as-is" from Defendant South Bay Toyota in Gardena, CA, paying $10,526.04. At the time of purchase, the vehicle’s odometer read 68,233 miles. Plaintiffs were given an Odometer Disclosure Statement attesting to this mileage. At no time did the dealership inform either Plaintiff that the mileage was inaccurate.
The salesperson and the manager both represented to Plaintiff that the vehicle was in good mechanical condition and was a fine-working vehicle. Within a few days after purchase, Plaintiff began noticing defective conditions with the vehicle, including the air conditioner blowing hot air, a loud whistling noise coming from the engine and electrical problems causing the vehicle to die out while driving it.
She thereupon continued to return the vehicle to Defendant but Defendant kept performing shoddy, makeshift repairs instead of ordering the needed parts. Furthermore, Defendant’s Service Manager taunted Plaintiff, laughing at them and stating that he could see he was intimidating them.
Before the warranty had expired, Defendant refused to do any more work on the vehicle, giving as the reason that the case was in litigation. Plaintiffs subsequently, on 4/26/97, received a complete vehicle inspection from plaintiff’s automotive expert Timothy Saurwein. The inspection revealed that the vehicle had a cracked exhaust pipe just below the exhaust manifold, with very hazardous fumes getting into the passenger compartment of the vehicle. The inspector stressed that this was "very unsafe" and that the exhaust fumes from the vehicle could result in "nausea or sickness or even death…." Prior to sale, Plaintiffs were not warned that the vehicle had sustained serious collision damage and had a very serious exhaust leak.
The inspector further found "very obvious" evidence that the odometer had been tampered with. He estimated that it had been rolled back from approximately 90,000 miles to approximately 60,000 miles. Around May 7, 1997, Plaintiff was feeling ill from driving the vehicle and went to see her doctor. Dr. Loy Pham agreed with the vehicle inspector that inhalation of the fumes could result in nausea, sleepiness and headaches.
CONTENTIONS
Plaintiff contended that the vehicle was unsafe and fraudulently misrepresented at the time of the sale. Defendant contended that the sale was "as-is", and thus defendant had no other obligation to disclose the condition of the vehicle to the plaintiff.
DAMAGES:
Purchase price of $10,526.04, plus general damages, punitive damages and attorney’s fees and costs.
Verdict Report (December 24, 1997)
Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act
Verdict: $31,000.00 (gross), $24,000.00 (net after Song-Beverly mileage offset), plus attorney’s fees and costs to plaintiffs.
Case Name: Michael and Donna McNitt v. General Motors Corp.
Trial Time: 6 days.
Attorneys:
Plaintiff’s Counsel: Robert F. Brennan, Esq., Glendale
Defendant’s Counsel: David Ruben, RUBEN & JUSTMAN, for defendant GENERAL MOTORS CORP.
FACTS:
On July 2, 1993, plaintiffs MICHAEL AND DONNA McNITT leased a 1993 Chevroled S-10 Blazer from Rally Chevrolet. Lease payments for the 60-month lease totaled $28,087.80. Plaintiffs drove the vehicle for approximately 20 months without serious problems, but at 26,000 miles the vehicle began to manifest severe engine difficulties. The car was still under the GM warranty, and the plaintiffs took the car back to GM several times for engine repairs, all of which were not successful. Plaintiff’s expert witness confirmed that the vehicle suffered from severe engine-related defects which had not been repaired, some of which related to design changes in the Chevy S-10 between the 1992 and 1993 model years.
CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiffs contended that the vehicle contained defects and nonconformities which GM and its dealerships failed to correct within a reasonable number of attempts. GM contended that the defects were not serious, that they had been substantially repaired and that the plaintiffs had enjoyed virtually the full benefit of their five-year lease at the time the case came to trial.
DAMAGES:
Lease price of $28,087.80, plus incidental damages of approximately $3,000.00.
OTHER INFORMATION:
The verdict was unanimous.
Settlement Report (January 5, 1998)
Consumer Legal Remedies Act
Settlement: $80,000.00, plus the balance of loan.
Attorneys:
Plaintiff’s Counsel: Robert F. Brennan, Esq., Glendale
Defendant’s Counsel: John Tasker, Esq., CALLAHAN, McCUNE & WILLIS, Los Angeles.
FACTS:
On January 2, 1997, defendant Dealer sold a 1995 Volkswagen Passat to Plaintiff for her personal use, at the retail price of $27,945.00. The vehicle was represented to Plaintiff as a used vehicle, in excellent condition. At the time of purchase, Plaintiff advised the dealer that she had a serious illness, primary pulmonary hypertension, and required reliable transportation in the event she needed to be rushed to a hospital emergency room. On February 13, 1997, Plaintiff took the car to Santa Monica Volkswagen to diagnose the reason the subject vehicle was making a grinding noise in the front end and to find out why when the she attempted to put the vehicle into Park, the gear shift would not go all the way in. At this time, Plaintiff was told that the vehicle may have had previous front end suspension repairs, and that driving the vehicle in its current condition may cause further damage to the vehicle and that it should not be driven. On February 19, 1997, Plaintiff additionally discovered from an inspection by an independent automotive expert that the vehicle had sustained extensive pre-sale collision damage, prior to the date that defendant Dealer sold the vehicle to her.
CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiff contended that defendant dealer had committed a deliberate fraud in selling her the subject vehicle without disclosing the collision damage. Defendant contended that it had no knowledge of the collision repairs, and that the collision repairs were not major.
DAMAGES:
Purchase price of $27,945.00, plus general damages, punitive damages and attorney’s fees.
TYPE OF CASE: CONSUMER FRAUD-AUTO SALES
CONFIDENTIAL: No
AMOUNT: TOTAL AMOUNT OF SETTLEMENT: $ 190,000.00. SPECIAL DAMAGES: $ 30,000.00. OTHER: $ 160,000.00 IN ATTORNEY'S FEES, GENERAL DAMAGES AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES.
ATTORNEYS: PLAINTIFF: ROBERT F. BRENNAN, ADDRESS AS ABOVE
EXPERTS: PLAINTIFF: DAVID STIVERS, DEALERSHIP PRACTICES; TIMOTHY SAURWEIN AND MIKE DE LA PENA, AUTOMOTIVE AND COLLISION EXPERTS.
DEFENSE:
DICK SCHMIDT, EMPLOYEE OF CHRYSLER CORP., AUTOMOTIVE MECHANICS AND DEALERSHIP PRACTICES; JOHN SAVICOOL, EMPLOYEE OF YUCCA VALLEY CHRYSLER-PLYMOUTH, AUTOMOTIVE MECHANICS AND COLLISION INSPECTION.
FACTS OF CASE:
On February 26, 1997, plaintiff Crystal Salazar purchased a used 1995 Chrysler Lebaron from Yucca Valley Chrysler-Plymouth for $22,840.33. She also purchased a Chrysler extended warranty for the vehicle. Sales personnel at the dealership specifically represented to her that the car was a lease return vehicle and had not been used as a rental car and had not been bought at an auction. She drove it for several months, and noted several recurring mechanical and body problems with the vehicle. In the fall of 1996, she was advised that the vehicle had frontal collision damage, which was not disclosed to her when she purchased the vehicle. She tried to get the dealership to refund her purchase price in exchange for returning the vehicle, but the dealership would never commit to refunding the full purchase price.
Subsequent investigation revealed that the car had been a rental car in the Dollar Rental fleet when it had sustained substantial collision damage in November of 1995. Dollar had the vehicle repaired at Target Auto Body in El Segundo. Plaintiff contended that Dollar and Target conspired to deflate the price of the collision repairs so that the vehicle remained eligible for Chrysler's "Guaranteed Depreciation Program", whereby Chrysler would repurchase rental vehicles from rental car companies, such as Dollar, for guaranteed prices if the vehicles did not have frame damage and if the vehicles had repaired collision damage with a value less than $1500.00.
PLAINTIFF’S CONTENTIONS:
That Dollar and Target deliberately concealed frame damage and deliberately deflated the price of the collision repairs to keep the vehicle eligible for the Guaranteed Depreciation Program, so that Dollar would recapture its investment in the vehicle.
DEFENSE CONTENTIONS:
That Plaintiff had rejected sufficient pre-litigation settlement offers, which would have restored her downpayment but would not have paid off her car loan. Defendants also contended that the damage to the vehicle was not serious and did not affect the use, value or safety of the vehicle. Chrysler Corp. Contended that it had no knowledge of the alleged actions by Dollar and Target Auto Body, and if Chrysler had known, it would have removed the vehicle from its Guaranteed Depreciation Program. Target and Dollar contended that they had repaired the vehicle according to industry standards and had not deliberately deflated the costs of repairs.
OTHER INFORMATION:
The case settled during the course of a three-session mediation with Andrew Patterson of Ivams.
The preceding testimonials or endorsements does not constitute a guarantee, warranty or prediction regarding the outcome of your legal matter.
TYPE OF CASE: LEMON LAW
CONFIDENTIAL: No
AMOUNT: TOTAL AMOUNT OF SETTLEMENT: $ 148,000
GENERAL AND SPECIAL DAMAGES: $ 81,000
OTHER: ATTORNEY FEES & COSTS $ 67,000
ATTORNEYS: PLAINTIFF: ROBERT F. BRENNAN, ADDRESS AS ABOVE
EXPERTS: PLAINTIFF: FORREST FOLKE
DEFENSE: HENRY J. POELMAN FOR GM; TIM McNATT FOR TIFFIN
FACTS OF CASE:
Plaintiffs purchased Tiffin motor home from Village R.V. that had several defects, including steering and road stability defects, damage to the slide-out portion of the motorhome and engine overheat malfunctions. Plaintiff also alleged fraud regarding the warranties sold with the vehicle and alleged non-disclosure of damaging prior uses of the vehicle.
PLAINTIFF’S CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiffs purchased Tiffin motor home that was defective; Plaintiff also alleged fraud regarding the warranties.
DEFENSE CONTENTIONS:
That the motor home was not defective and there was no fraud concerning the warranties. Defendant GM contended that it had fully discharged its obligations under the GM warranty, which was not timely sent in to GM by Village R.V., the selling dealer.
DAMAGES:
$81,000 (FULL PURCHASE PRICE OF THE VEHICLE PLUS TOWING AND REPAIR EXPENSES).
SETTLEMENT DISCUSSIONS:
Several pre-trial discussions occurred with defendant's top pre-trial offer consisting of approximately $50,000.00 for damages and attorney's fees. Case settled on fourth day of trial, during Plaintiff's case.
The preceding testimonials or endorsements does not constitute a guarantee, warranty or prediction regarding the outcome of your legal matter.