|
Search
Search through the thousands of lawsuits, complaints and recalls on our site.
 |
Case ID: 2887 | Automotive | 01/05/2005
The parties have reached a tentative $1.725 million settlement in an action filed against Southern General Insurance Company on behalf all persons insured under an automobile insurance policy issued in Georgia by the company who made a claim for damage to their vehicle under their collision or comprehensive coverage for a loss that occurred between June 12, 1997, and February 13, 2002, or under their uninsured motorist coverage for a loss that occurred between June 12, 1999, and February 13, 2002. The action sought reimbursement for the diminished value of these vehicles due to their having been repaired. Though there is no claims deadline at this time, persons 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.
Under the settlement, the companies have agreed to reimburse those drivers the amount by which the value of their vehicles was reduced--its so-called "diminished value"--by the mere fact that it was involved in an accident and then repaired. The theory of diminished value asserts that buyers choosing between two otherwise equal vehicles will select the one that has not been previously damaged and repaired, even where the repairs to the other vehicle were first-rate. Therefore, this theory contends, the very fact that a car has been involved in an accident causes the car to lose value, even if it was fully repaired. The class is made up of persons who were insured under a Georgia personal lines insurance policy issued by Southern General who reported (a) one or more valid physical damage claims for vehicle damage under that policy's collision or comprehensive coverages, which occurred and was reported between June 12, 1997, and February 13, 2002, or (b) one or more valid physical damage claims for vehicle damage under that policy's uninsured motorist coverage which occurred and was reported between June 12, 1999, and February 13, 2002. Class members can call the Settlement Hotline toll-free for further information at (866) 354-8012. To participate in the settlement, class members do not have to do anything at this time. If you think you are an eligible class member and want to verify that the administrator has your name, please write to: Hamrick Diminished Value Settlement Please include your name, current address, daytime telephone number, policy number and date of accident/loss. This will enable the parties to verify your eligibility as a potential class member. The settlement will not be effective until the court grants it final approval. The court has scheduled a hearing on the matter for November 14, 2003. 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 Many Los Angeles-area consumers shopping at Drive Time (formerly known as Ugly Ducking) for used cars usually filled out credit applications containing all of their confidential financial information, including name, social security number, employment information and home address. These consumers assumed that Drive Time would keep these credit applications under lock and key and not leak them to anyone outside of Drive Time. Tens of thousands of Florida motorists will get compensation under a $50 million class-action settlement approved over the alleged illegal purchase of their motor vehicle records by a bank from the state government. The class has been certified in an action filed against General Motors Corporation on behalf of all persons who purchased a new Chevrolet, GMC, Cadillac, Oldsmobile, Buick, or Pontiac vehicle at retail in Pennsylvania from a franchised GM dealer between 1988 and 1999. The action alleges that GM added 1% of the manufacturer's suggested retail price to the invoice of each new vehicle it sold to its dealers, in violation of the Pennsylvania Board of Vehicles Act. Philadelphia Common Pleas Judge Mark I. Bernstein rejected a proposed settlement of a tentative class action stemming from the recall of roughly 162,000 Isuzu SUVs due to defective brake systems.
In his recent nine-page order in Parker v. American Isuzu Motors Inc., Bernstein argued that certain requirements of the proposed settlement -- such as that class members would need to produce a police report that supported their claim in order to receive compensation -- might cause plaintiffs undue difficulty.
A class action has been filed against the Washington state Department of Licensing on behalf of state drivers whose licenses were suspended through the mail, who allege that their right to due process of law has been violated since they have no opportunity to contest potential errors. The action seeks unspecified compensatory damages. Camden, New Jersey Foulke Management Corporation, which operates a number of car dealerships, has engaged in a series of bait-and-switch sales practices. The practices were so widespread and frequent that a couple filed a class action lawsuit against Foulke. |
IT'S FREE
|
© 2000 - 2008 Copyright. All rights reserved nola3, llc.
