|
Search
Search through the thousands of lawsuits, complaints and recalls on our site.
 |
Case ID: 2552 | Automotive | 07/15/2003
A class action has been filed against the nation's three leading automobile manufacturers on behalf of Ohio residents who leased or purchased an automobile from Ford Motor Company, DaimlerChrysler Corporation, or General Motors Corporation and who, after going through the Ohio Lemon Law Dispute Resolution Board, had a "reasonable use" charge deducted from the refund that they received. The action alleged that the deductions violated both the Ohio Nonconforming New Motor Vehicle Law, which is commonly called the "lemon law," and the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act. The action seeks unspecified compensatory damages and an order from the court prohibiting "reasonable use" setoffs in the future.
Beatrix Maitland, like other named car buyers and lessors in the action, alleged that her vehicle malfunctioned so many times that she finally initiated lemon law proceedings as allowed by Ohio law. Her case was heard by a lemon law dispute resolution board, which found a nonconformity in the vehicle and concluded that she was entitled to relief in the form of a refund, repurchase, or replacement. The board then allowed a setoff from the refund for reasonable use of the vehicle by Mrs. Maitland. The setoff was allowed because it allegedly followed state attorney general guidelines that have since been repealed. When Mrs. Maitland took her claim into court, it was initially dismissed. On appeal to the Ohio Court of Appeals, the action was reinstated. The appeals court ruled that Mrs. Maitland stated a claim for violation of the unconscionable acts or practices portion of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act in addition to her claim under the Lemon Law. This part of the sales practice act applies when a supplier knowingly takes advantage of a consumer in an inferior bargaining position. The court ruled that consumers like Mrs. Maitland could be considered to be in an inferior bargaining position because the costs and risks of rejecting the settlement offer and proceeding with a lawsuit were prohibitively high. Ohio and West Virginia are the only states with lemon laws that do not specifically authorize a deduction for reasonable use of the vehicles. At Lawcash.com, it is our goal to keep you informed about important legal cases, class actions and settlements. Our lawyers offer free legal evaluations in tort cases, class actions, personal injury, and other lawsuits because we are dedicated to helping you resolve your legal complaints. Other Automotive Cases of Interest Owners of certain GM SUVs and Trucks have reported problems with their speedometers. Uninsured/underinsured motorist automobile insurance covers you if you are injured in an accident by a liable party who carries insufficient (or no) liability insurance. The parties have reached a tentative $2 million settlement in an action filed against Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Company and related companies on behalf of California policyholders who were sent a selection/rejection form by the company and had their uninsured motorist coverage limits raised unilaterally by the company above $30,000/$60,000 and paid for the coverage between January 1, 1994, and December 31, 2002. Claim forms must be postmarked by October 22, 2003, to be considered valid. Alton, Illinois plaintiff’s attorney Lanny Darr filed suit July 11, 2005 against Affirmative Insurance Company because it would only reimburse him $18.90 per day for a rental vehicle. Darr claims he was involved in an auto accident Feb. 14, 2005 with a driver, who was negligent and insured by Affirmative.
“Affirmative refused to lease a vehicle for Darr and failed to reimburse for an amount greater than $18.90 per day, which is illegal under Illinois law,” the complaint states. Darr claims he could not drive his Ford Explorer for several days while it was being repaired.
The class has been certified in an action filed against Kia Motors America, Inc. on behalf of Pennsylvanians who purchased or leased a 1995-2001 Kia Sephia for personal, family or household purposes. The action alleges that the autos have inherently defective brakes in violation of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, the federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Improvement Act, along with allegations for breach of implied and express warranties.
A U.S. district judge recently certified a national class-action lawsuit brought by a Detroit businessman against Illinois-based Caterpillar Inc. over diesel engines the company makes for large yachts. A statewide class action has been filed in Ohio against Envirotest Systems Corporation on behalf of all Ohio residents who, since December 1995, have taken their automobiles to an Ohio E-Check facility for mandatory emissions testing and were charged for the test when their vehicle failed the test. The automobile owners are seeking declaratory and injunctive relief as well as damages of no less than $25,000.
|
IT'S FREE
|
© 2000 - 2008 Copyright. All rights reserved nola3, llc.
