Court Rulings Benefit Ohio Consumers under the Ohio Lemon Law

Attorneys Mitch Luxenburg and David Levin have represented consumers in many significant reported case decisions in appeals courts throughout Ohio and before the Ohio Supreme Court. Many of these rulings continue to benefit other Ohio consumers by further defining consumers' rights under the Ohio Lemon Law, the Federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and other consumer statutes. Below are summaries of some of these important court rulings that involved Volkswagen problems, Suzuki Problems, Isuzu problems, and Mercedes problems.

McGuire v. American Suzuki Motors
2004 WL 2913952, 2004 -Ohio- 6799, Ohio App. 7 Dist., December 09, 2004 (NO. 03 CO 40)

Consumer purchased a new 2000 Suzuki DRZ400EY Motorcycle from Andrews Honda-Yamaha-Kawasaki-Suzuki-Polaris and immediately faced problems with their Suzuki. During the warranty period consumer reported irregular noises to dealership for repair. After expiration of warranty consumer experienced similar complaints and the engine failed. Suzuki refused to repair and alleged that the expiration of the warranty precluded lemon law claims. Consumer brought action under Ohio Lemon Law and Magnuson Moss Warranty Act. After a unanimous jury verdict in favor of Consumer, the trial reversed the verdict stating that consumer failed to draw a connection to the warranty complaints and the later engine failure. Consumer appealed. In re-instating the jury verdict, the Seventh District Court of Appeals stated that expert testimony is not required to prove a causal connection where there has been a functional impairment of the vehicle.

Neeld v. American Isuzu Motors
2004 WL 2715919, 2004 -Ohio- 6358, Ohio App. 10 Dist., November 30, 2004 (NO. 04AP-75)

Consumer leased a new 2001 Isuzu Rodeo and experienced numerous problems that the authorized dealerships alleged they could not duplicate. Consumer brought action under Ohio Lemon Law and Magnuson Moss Warranty Act. At trial, consumer was able to prove dealerships did not exhaust all remedies in attempting to diagnose problem with the Isuzu and the jury unanimously found for the Consumer. Isuzu attempted to overturn the Jury verdict, which the trial court denied. Isuzu appealed. The Tenth District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial courts ruling and held that the evidence presented was sufficient for reasonable minds to conclude that a non-conformity in the vehicle had been proven. The Appellate Court also held that the diminished resale value of the vehicle was sufficient evidence of a substantial impairment to the value of the vehicle under the law.

Ulrich v. Mercedes Benz USA
2005 WL 711903, 2005 -Ohio- 1461, Ohio App. 9 Dist., March 30, 2005 (NO. 22224)

Consumers purchased a new 2002 Mercedes CL55 and immediately thereafter began to experience numerous electrical issues with vehicle. Both Manufacturer and Consumer filed Motions for Summary Judgment. Consumers Motion was granted after the Manufacturers Motion was denied. The Ninth District Court of Appeals held that whether the cumulative effect of the defects rose to the level of a non-conformity under Ohio?s Lemon Law was a question of fact for the Jury. Ultimately Consumer prevailed at trial under his Ohio Lemon Law and breach of warranty claims.

Hedrick v. Spitzer Auto World
2007 WL 4442689, 2007 -Ohio- 6820, Ohio App. 8 Dist., December 20, 2007 (NO. 89306)

Consumers purchased a used 2004 Jeep Grand Cherokee and thereafter experienced numerous defects with the Jeep. Consumer filed suit against Manufacturer alleging a breach of the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act. As part of this action, Consumer learned for the first time that the Jeep had previously been used as a rental vehicle and that the Dealership knew this fact at the time of purchase. Consumer filed suit against Dealer alleging violations of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act and common law fraud. Thereafter, Consumer settled his claims against Manufacturer and signed a Release. Dealership claimed it was protected under the prior release with Manufacturer. After Consumer prevailed on trial on underlying issue, Dealer appealed the issue of the release. The Eighth District Court of Appeals held that Dealership was not protected by third party release.

Curl v. Volkswagen of America
114 Ohio St.3d 266, 871 N.E.2d 1141, 2007-2 Trade Cases P 75,785, 2007 -Ohio- 3609, Ohio, July 18, 2007

Consumers purchased a 2002 Volkswagen New Beetle. The vehicle had previously been used by the dealership?s service department as a rental vehicle. Within 6 weeks of the Consumer's purchase the Volkswagen caught fire as the result of a Recall that had not been performed by the dealership. The vehicle was out of service for 84 days. Consumer filed a lawsuit under Ohio's Lemon Law and the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act. Consumer prevailed in the trial and appellate courts. The Ohio State Supreme Court held buyers of used vehicles are covered by Ohio?s Lemon Law so long as the non-conformities are reported within 12 months or 18,000 from the date of delivery to the first consumer, in this case the dealership who used the vehicle in their fleet.

Deeter v. Yamaha Motor Corporation, USA
2005 WL 940902 (Ohio App. 2 Dist.), 2005 -Ohio- 1931

Consumer purchased a 2002 Yamaha motorcycle. Ten months later, the motorcycle was out of service for 57 consecutive days for repairs. The parts to repair the Consumer's motorcycle were not available due to a national back order. The delay was due to a dockworker's strike in Southern California. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Consumer under the Ohio Lemon Law. The appellate court upheld the judgment, holding that the statutory presumption under the Ohio Lemon Law still applied and that the problem with the Consumer's motorcycle did substantially impair the motorcycle's use value and safety.

Urso v. Apostolakis Honda
2005 WL 3150180, 2005 -Ohio- 6292, Ohio App. 11 Dist., November 25, 2005 (NO. 2005-T-0037)

Consumer purchased a used Chevrolet 1500 pick up truck from Dealership with a 30 day warranty. During 30 day period Consumer complained of oil leaks which the Dealership was unable to repair. After 30 day period, engine failed and Dealership refused to assist with cost of repair. Consumer brought action under Magnuson Moss Warranty Act. Dealership alleged that consumer failed to draw a connection to the warranty complaints and the later engine failure. After a unanimous jury verdict for Consumer, Dealership appealed. In affirming the jury verdict, the Eleventh District Court of Appeals stated that expert testimony is not required to prove a causal connection wherein there has been a functional impairment of the vehicle and circumstantial evidence was sufficient.

Szubski v. Mercedes Benz, USA
124 Ohio Misc.2d 82, 796 N.E.2d 81, 2003-2 Trade Cases P 74,169, 2003 -Ohio- 4640, Ohio Com.Pl., April 08, 2003 (NO. CV-02-483588)

Consumer leased a 2000 Mercedes Benz E320S and later brought suit against Mercedes-Benz for under the Ohio Lemon Law and the Federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. The trial court denied the Defendant?s Motion to dismiss, holding that the Consumer, as the lessee of the vehicle, was entitled to the same protections of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act as someone who purchases a vehicle.

Shular v. Daimler Chrysler Corporation
2001 WL 370532, Ohio App. 8 Dist., April 12, 2001 (NO. 78856)

The Consumer purchased a Dodge Neon and prevailed at trial on her claim of breach of implied warranty under the Federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. The trial court entered a judgment against Chrysler for all of the Consumer's attorneys' fees. The appellate court upheld the judgment, stating that the Consumer was the prevailing party for purposes of the award of attorney fees and costs.

Noble v. Atomic Auto Sales
2008 WL 192312, 2008 -Ohio- 233, Ohio App. 8 Dist., January 24, 2008 (NO. 89431)

The Consumer purchased a used Nissan Altima from the Dealer. The Dealer entered "TMU" on the Odometer Disclosure Statement, which it claimed meant "True Mileage Unknown." The Consumer later discovered that the Altima's odometer was not working at all. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Consumer under the Ohio Odometer Rollback and Disclosure Act and that ruling was upheld by the Court of Appeals. The Court held that the Dealer, as the transferor of a vehicle with an incorrect odometer disclosure statement, was subject to strict liability. This was the case even if the Consumer knew or should have known that the odometer was not functioning before he purchase the Altima.

Coble v. Toyota of Bedford
2004 WL 99039, 2004 -Ohio- 238, Ohio App. 8 Dist., January 22, 2004 (NO. 83089)

Consumer leased a new 2001 Toyota Celica after being told by the dealership that she could not obtain financing to purchase the vehicle. Consumer brought action under the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act and common law fraud alleging that he dealership grossly overcharged her. Dealership filed a motion to enforce binding arbitration under the lender?s arbitration agreement. The trial court granted the motion and the Eighth District Court of Appeals held that the dealership was covered under the blanket arbitration agreement of the lender.

GUARANTEED RESULTS - You pay us no fees unless and until we earn a settlement or judgment for you.