U.B. Vehicle Leasing, Inc. Charged with Hiding Fees and Calling Them "Taxes" in Florida |
 |
A Florida class action has been filed against auto leasing company U.B. Vehicle Leasing, Inc., on behalf of vehicle lessees who allege that the company charged them "taxes" that were actually just undisclosed fees to cover wear and tear, and excess mileage on the vehicles, in violation of Florida consumer protection laws and the federal Consumer Leasing Act. The action seeks unspecified compensatory damages.
Though the action is currently restricted to Floridians who have leases with U.B. Vehicle Leasing, or whose lease with the company expired in the last year, the attorneys who filed this action are interested in hearing from persons who lease or have leased vehicles in other states as well. If you have had a similar experience with a different car leasing agency, you should also feel free to contact them.
U.B Vehicle Leasing was initially owned by the Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi, Ltd. The Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi sold the leasing company to PNC Financial Services Group in 2000.
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
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. Many people now leasing autos are overpaying because they didn't know how to get a good deal - or how to recognize a bad deal. A Florida class action has been filed against auto financing company Chase Manhattan Automotive Finance Corporation on behalf of vehicle lessees who allege that the company charged them "taxes" that were actually just undisclosed fees to cover wear and tear, and excess mileage on the vehicles, in violation of Florida consumer protection laws and the federal Consumer Leasing Act. State "lemon laws" are designed to protect consumers who have purchased a vehicle that turns out to be so defective that numerous attempts to fix all its problems are insufficient. 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 theory of diminished value asserts that buyers choosing between two otherwise equal vehicles will select one that has not been previously damaged and repaired, even where the repairs to the other vehicle were first-rate. The parties have reached a tentative $2,346,535 settlement in an action filed against SAFECO Insurance Company of America and numerous affiliated companies on behalf all persons insured by an automobile insurance policy issued in Georgia by the defendants and who made a claim for damage to their vehicles under their collision, comprehensive, underinsured, or uninsured motorist coverage for a loss that occurred between June 19, 1997, and November 28, 2001. Though there is no claims deadline at this time, persons who are eligible to take part in the settlement who have not received a notification letter should act as soon as possible to alert the company of their eligibility. A class action lawsuit was filed in the Eastern District of Michigan on behalf of
plaintiffs, against the Automobile Club of Michigan. The lawsuit alleges violation of ERISA against defendant Automobile Club of Michigan (AAA), failure to maintain records; failure to credit hours of service required by ERISA; and violation of FLSA Claims (Fair Labor Standards Act) against defendant Automobile Club of Michigan. The parties have reached a tentative $1.5 million settlement of a class action filed against automotive parts manufacturer Federal-Mogul Corporation (OTCBB: FDMLQ, formerly NYSE: FMO) and certain of its officers and directors by stockholders who purchased the company's common stock between October 22, 1998, and May 25, 2000. To recover under the settlement, a completed proof of claim postmarked no later than January 9, 2004, must be mailed to the claims administrator.
|