|
Search
Search through the thousands of lawsuits, complaints and recalls on our site.
 |
Case ID: 4314 | Automotive | 06/24/2005
Millions of consumers have been defrauded into paying thousands extra for a so-called pre-owned used car (CPO) over the past four years when the car may have gone through the same certification as any other used car.
The case is brought about by a firm in southern California that represented the family of a 17-year-old girl who died in a so-called CPO. It was later learned that the car was sold with frame damage and had a history of steering and brake problems. The firm discovered a fraudulent CPO Program, lack of involvement by the car manufacturer, and deceptive practices by at least one dealer. The parties settled this year for an undisclosed amount. Manufacturers such as Ford market the CPO cars to be the 'best of the best' used cars, and in many cases, they are not better than any other used car. Marketing the CPO vehicles is to give the consumers peace of mind that the vehicle has undergone a special inspection certified by the manufacturer. At most Ford dealers, the consumer receives a certificate signed by the president of Ford Division, Steve Lyons, congratulating the new owner on his or her purchase. The certificate assures them their car has passed a series of intense and rigorous inspections to verify that it meets or exceeds all program standards and quality commitments. The certificate also explains the 115-point inspection Ford states the vehicle has undergone, and even lists benefits of their new purchase of a CPO vehicle. According to the suit, the inspection done on all CPO vehicles is the same inspection the technicians performed on all vehicles. The suit notes that the number of CPO vehicles sold in the U.S. in 2003 amounted to approximately 38% of all used car sales. Recent data shows that around 1.375 million CPO vehicles were sold in 2004, and estimates for 2005 reach over 1.4 million. According to Southern California attorney that filed the case, "If all 1.4 million CPO cars sold in 2005 were bogus, that would mean consumers were paying around $1.5 billion extra for no real benefit. The lawsuit alleges that the defendants' failure to disclose that the inspection process is the same for all used vehicles, whether in the program or not, makes its business programs deceptive and unfair. The suit seeks damages of the CPO premium plus interest, punitive damages to prevent Ford or other manufacturers from engaging in similar practices, an order requiring Ford to stop advertising CPO vehicles as having gone through a special inspection process, and lastly, requiring Ford to change their CPO program so that it offers an inspection different than that performed on a used car. 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 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. Two Michigan men filed a lawsuit against a maker of tires for recreational vehicles they say are defective and pose a safety risk. Jeffrey Hunsaker, of Byron Center, and Dennis Drooger, of Holland, filed the suit against Carlisle Tire & Wheel Co. last January in Kalamazoo. 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.
On March 17, 2008, two motions to appoint certain individuals as lead plaintiffs were filed. While an order denying motion to appoint Inter-Local Pension Fund GCC/IBT as lead plaintiff, it granted motion to appoint U.S. Public Pension Fund instead as lead plaintiff on May 09, 2008.
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. Does your GM vehicle make excessive engine noise? Several class actions have been filed against General Motors Corporation on behalf of purchasers of 1999 through 2003 model GM vehicles with a 3.1, 3.4, 4.8, 5.3, 5.7 (LS1), 6.0, or 8.1 liter engine that exhibits a loud noise due to piston slap, who allege that GM actively concealed the engine defect while continuing to advertise, market, and warrant that GM engines are free from defects. Some of the models that may have the defect are the Chevrolet Camaro, Corvette, Silverado, Tahoe and Surburban; GM Denali and Yukon; Cadillac Escalade and Pontiac TransAm. |
IT'S FREE
|
© 2000 - 2008 Copyright. All rights reserved nola3, llc.
