Lemon car, SUV, truck, RV, motor home chassis problems in Virginia? Contact the attorney who wrote Virginia's Lemon Laws for an accurate consultation for the fastest way to resolve your lemon law claim.

News

Misrepresentation costly for Norfolk dealership

Virginia Lawyers Weekly, Volume 21, Number 36, February 12, 2007

Sunshine Hardison told the salesman at Checkered Flag Motor Car Co. in Norfolk that she wanted a one-owner vehicle in her price range that had not been wrecked.

The salesman assured her that the 2000 Hyundai Elantra she bought for $6,400 was just what she had asked for.

In fact, the car had had several owners. It had been in a major front-end collision, and it had been repossessed. The salesman did not disclose that the car had been repossessed, as Virginia Code §59.1-200 requires.

The transaction proved to be very expensive for the dealership. Retired Judge John E. Clarkson arbitrated Hardison’s claims of fraud and violations of the Virginia Consumer Protection Act and awarded her a total of $114,400 - $2,500 in actual damages trebled under the VCPA because of what Clarkson found to be the willful and fraudulent misrepresentations of the dealership, $50,000 in punitive damages for fraud, $60,400 in attorneys’ fees and costs and $4,700 in arbitration costs, less a $7,500 offset for the duplication of the VCPA willful misconduct and punitive damage awards.

John Cole Gayle Jr. Of Richmond, who represented Hardison along with John M. Barrett of Virginia Beach, said the attorneys’ fees reflected extended litigation before the arbitration. Hardison won a $10,000 judgment in general district court, which the dealership appealed to circuit court.

The sales contract required arbitration of any claims, and the trial court finally decided to enforce the clause after several hearings on the issue. The parties agreed the The McCammon Group would arbitrate the claim, Gayle said.

Gayle said the dealership contended that it was unaware of the vehicle’s history. That contention was refuted by the company’s own records, which showed multiple owners and the repossession, and the testimony of the owner of the car when it was wrecked. She said she had bought it from Checkered Flag and sold it back to the dealership after the wreck.

back to top

CONSUMER WATCH: The downside of voluntary repossession

IRIS TAYLOR
TIMES-DISPATCH COLUMNIST
Sunday, January 14, 2007


Nedra Peyton of Richmond, a working mother of two small children, purchased a used car in October.

She agreed to make payments every two weeks for three years. She had no experience buying cars. The car came with a 180-day limited warranty.

Within the first month, Peyton said, the car broke down twice and had to be towed to the place she bought it for repair. It also was missing a heating and air-conditioning part and she said the front end was making a rubbing noise.

Each time she took the car back, the repairs were made but she was given a hard time, she said. The second time it was towed, she angrily told them to keep the car and refund her money.

She was told that if she left it, it would be a voluntary repossession and she'd still have to pay the note.

A voluntary repossession means the person voluntarily gave the vehicle back for whatever reason as opposed to it being involuntarily repossessed.

. . .

If this happens to you or someone you love, what should you do?

John C. Gayle Jr. of The Consumer Law Group on Libbie Avenue in Richmond responded.

Gayle cautioned against abandoning a newly purchased car at the dealership. "It doesn't make any sense," he said.

For one reason, "it goes on their books as a voluntary repossession." That negatively impacts a person's credit score.

Steve Katz of the credit reporting agency TransUnion in Chicago and Rod Griffin of Experian in Dallas said whether it's a voluntary or involuntary repossession, a person's score will be impacted equally.

A repossession is "very, very bad," Griffin said. Another reason not to abandon the vehicle is the dealer may have misrepresented its condition at the time of sale.

If you've given it back, "How are you going to prove anything?" Gayle said.

Dealers resell repossessed vehicles at auction for whatever they can get, then come after the one it was repossessed from to collect the difference.

If a newly purchased used car turns out to be a clunker, you can sue under Virginia's so-called "Lemon Law" only if you bought it while there was still time left on the original manufacturer's warranty.

You have up to 18 months from the date that the warranty first went into effect to sue, Gayle said.

If you've purchased a used car that turns out to be a heap:

• Read your contract. If it says you purchased the car "as is," you're responsible for repairs and the dealer has no obligation to assist with repairs.

• Stay current on your payments. If you're late, the dealer has the right to take back the vehicle and sell it.

• You may be able to rescind the sale. "You really ought to get an attorney's advice" before doing this, Gayle said.
But, if you can't, stop driving the car and put the dealership on notice, by certified mail, that in 30 days you intend to rescind the sale unless it corrects the problem.

• Read your rights. Go to www.theconsumerlawgroup.com.


If you're planning to, but haven't yet purchased a used vehicle, run its vehicle identification number, or VIN, through Carfax.

It might be free through the dealership or $24.99 at www.carfax.com.

If possible, have it checked out at a body shop and by a mechanic.

What happened with Peyton?

She did not leave her car at the place she bought it. "I believe I have an oil leak" and the check engine light was on but "just went off," she said.

However, "I haven't had any major problems recently"

Peyton said she looked up the car's book value after buying it. "I am stuck with a $20,000 car worth only $7,000 [$13,000 for the car, plus interest]," she said.

Contact staff writer Iris Taylor at itaylor@timesdispatch.com or (804) 649-6349.

This story can be found at:

Read More About CONSUMER WATCH: The downside of voluntary repossession...

back to top

National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration Releases Annual Crash Predictions

The NHTSA has released its annual projections for crashes and fatalities on our nation's highways.

Traffic fatalitites are expected to increase by 1%, while injuries caused by crashes are expected to decline by 4%.

To view the entire report, please follow the link below.

Read More About National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration Releases Annual Crash Predictions...

back to top

LifeSmarts Competition

On March 3, 2006, John Cole Gayle, Jr. again served as a judge in the “LifeSmarts...the ultimate consumer challenge” competition. LifeSmarts is a program that gives high school students an opportunity to learn about issues and challenges faced by today’s consumers. The students compete in a game-show style competition in district and state level matches. The winners can advance to the national competition which is held in Philadelphia.

back to top

Advocates, dealerships cheer car-inspection bill's demise

By Christy Goodman
Examiner Staff Writer
Published: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 9:45 PM EST

Consumer advocates and car dealerships won a battle over legislation they said would promote dishonest businesses.

The legislation, introduced by Sen. Thomas Norment, R-Williamsburg, would have entitled someone buying a used car to an inspection. What raised concern was that the person buying the car - whether they had it inspected or not - would sign a piece of paper waiving their right to sue if a vehicle defect appeared later.

A spokesman for Norment said the senator pulled the bill from consideration. After more research has been conducted, the bill could be brought back next year, he said.

"We don't think it is good policy to have a law that those unethical dealers can't be punished because they can have you sign a piece of paper and wave your rights," said Jay Speer, acting executive director of the Virginia Poverty Law Center.

The bill would "penalize honest car dealers and screw up the free-market competitive system" because dishonest car dealers would be successful instead of providing better service and products at a reasonable cost, said John Gayle, an attorney with the Consumer Law Group.

Gayle said the 600,000 vehicles that were flooded during Hurricane Katrina and Wilma are being sold at auction for cheap prices, but put on lots for high prices.

"Had this bill gone forward, Virginia could have easily been a dumping ground for those vehicles," Gayle said.

One of the most vocal opponents of the bill was Virginia-based CarMax, the nation's largest used car dealership.

"CarMax was founded on the principal of integrity and doing what is right for the consumer," said Trina Lee, a company spokeswoman. "CarMax provides quality cars that do not have frame or flood damage - but would not want consumers to be unprotected in the general marketplace."

Flood-damaged Vehicle Problems

- Electronic components deteriorated and corroded

- Airbags could fail to inflate at necessary times

- Failure of anti-lock brakes

Source: Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety

back to top

USED-VEHICLE PURCHASE

The following article appeared in The Virginian-Pilot on February 23, 2006:

Bill is dropped over consumer concerns

A bill that opponents called "a wolf in sheep's clothing" has been dropped before it could be considered in the House of Delegates.

The legislation, SB153 , required auto dealers to inform potential buyers about the right to request an inspection before purchasing a used vehicle.

The legislation also would have given legal protection to a car dealer if the buyer later contended that he or she was not informed of mechanical problems.

It was that part of the proposal that drew criticism from a coalition of statewide poverty advocacy groups, consumer protection lobbyists, and Richmond-based used car dealer CarMax.

In a press conference Wednesday, John Gayle, the Virginia coordinator for the National Association of Consumer Advocates, said the bill's death was a victory for poor people.

At a time when a large number of hurricane-damaged vehicles are appearing on the market, residents need protection from dealers who might pass off salvaged cars as perfectly fine, he said.

"Virginia would become a dumping ground for those vehicles," Gayle said. "This bill is terrible for Virginia consumers. The only people it would help is disreputable car dealers."

The bill had passed the Senate 31-8, but Sen. Thomas Norment , R-James City, withdrew it from consideration this week after stronger opposition arose.

Norment, who is part owner of a car dealership, had said the bill would have given drivers an unprecedented legal right to an inspection.

He also had said that buyers were better off knowing a car's defects before the purchase, rather than going to court for damages after buying the vehicle.

- Meghan Hoyer

back to top

Inspection bill put on hold by Sen. Norment

The following article appeared in the Daily Press on February 23, 2006:

Inspection bill put on hold by Sen. Norment

The measure, which would have limited lawsuits against auto dealers, drew strong opposition.

BY HUGH LESSIG
(804) 225-7345
February 23, 2006

RICHMOND -- As critics lined up to oppose him, Sen. Thomas K. Norment Jr. agreed Wednesday to table legislation aimed at reducing lawsuits against auto dealers.

The James City County Republican is part owner of an auto dealership, and that sparked a war of words from a distance. A consumer attorney speculated that Norment authored the bill because he "doesn't like being sued."

Later, Norment said that he doesn't "give a rip" about his critics. He responded to one concern - that his bill would make Virginia a dumping ground for hurricane-damaged cars - by saying his detractors needed "to come up and get a little more oxygen to their brain."
His legislation, which will be considered next year, adds a new wrinkle to purchasing a car or truck. Consumers would have the option of having the vehicle inspected either on the lot or by their favorite mechanic. In return, they would waive the right to sue based on claims of prior damage.

Norment said he filed the bill to reduce frivolous and expensive lawsuits against dealers, and because it described the inspection option for consumers.

But critics came from all over the spectrum: state and national consumer groups, the Virginia Poverty Law Center, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference and even auto giant CarMax.

Attorney John Gayle said Norment's bill would have made Virginia a dumping ground for the 500,000 to 600,000 flood-damaged vehicles that are poised to enter the market from the Gulf Coast.

It would slam poor people who wouldn't have the money for an inspection. It doesn't really provide additional rights because consumers can insist on an inspection now.

And it would help dishonest dealers, who would not inspect a car before acquiring it. They would leave it up to the buyer.

"This bill is terrible for the Virginia consumers," said Gayle, the state coordinator for the National Association of Consumer Advocates. "The only people it does help are the disreputable dealers."

CarMax cited a similar reason in opposing the bill.

In a news release, the auto seller said the legislation would "shield unethical car dealers from liability for any defects, known or unknown, in a used vehicle it retails, as long as the customer was given the opportunity to inspect the vehicle."

Andrew Shannon, state president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, said the bill was "an economic justice matter."

Norment said the broad opposition had nothing to do with his decision to table the bill. With the legislature fixated on transportation, he said he didn't have time to steer the bill through the House of Delegates. It had already passed the Senate.

He vowed to bring it back next year.

"I only have so much energy to direct on so many things," he said. "I'm kind of focused on some bigger fish."

He suggested that the bill became "radioactive" because some lawyers were worried about their paychecks, not protecting the public.

"It addresses an abusive issue by some consumer attorneys," he said.
Gayle questioned Norment's motives in filing the bill.

"I have to believe, this is my own personal opinion ... that Senator Norment, as a car dealer, as someone who represents car dealers against me and other lawyers, doesn't like being sued," he said.

He stopped short of saying that Norment has a legal conflict of interest in Virginia's part-time legislature, where lawmakers often file bills related to their jobs or careers. Lawyers author bills to change criminal code. Educators sponsor bills that affect schools.

"He is putting forward a bill that protects his own personal interest," Gayle said. "I don't know that it's a legal conflict of interest. But it certainly opens him up to significant criticism of feathering his own bed, and consequently makes it look unseemly."

Norment has said he has no conflict of interests because the bill affects car dealers statewide. He said his background has given him knowledge of this area of the law, just as other lawmakers rely on their expertise in private life.

back to top

Car-Dealer Measure Is Pulled

In a recent Richmond Times Dispatch article, Greg Edwards wrote about a controversial bill that would have given car dealers immunity from consumer lawsuits. John Cole Gayle, Jr. of The Consumer Law Group fought against passing the bill and was quoted in the article.

Car-dealer measure is pulled
Norment's proposal to shield sellers from lawsuits was criticized

BY GREG EDWARDS
TIMES-DISPATCH STAFF WRITER
Thursday, February 23, 2006

A state senator has decided to park a controversial bill that would have given car dealers immunity from consumer lawsuits.

Sen. Thomas K. Norment Jr., R-James City, said yesterday he will ask that the legislation be carried over until 2007. The bill had passed the Senate 31-8 and was before the House of Delegates.

Norment's bill would have required auto dealers to notify buyers of their right to have a vehicle inspected by a mechanic of their choosing before a purchase. However, the bill also said that if a dealer gave the required notice, a dissatisfied buyer couldn't argue that the vehicle was not in the condition represented by the dealer, whether the buyer had the vehicle inspected or not.

John C. Gayle Jr. of the National Association of Consumer Advocates described the legislation as a "wolf in sheep's clothing." It has been sold as a consumer bill but the only people it would help are disreputable car dealers, he said.

Norment said the measure was prompted by his discussions with car dealers and insurance companies that represent car dealers. It was intended to reduce "abusive litigation" brought by consumer's attorneys, he said.

Other pressing issues at the General Assembly will keep him from pursuing the legislation this year, Norment said. "I just have so much energy to direct on so many things."

Norment, who is a part-owner in a Yorktown auto dealership, acknowledged that his bill has drawn much negative attention. "I didn't think it would become as radioactive as it has," he said.

Consumer groups, plaintiff's attorneys, advocates for the poor, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference and the nation's largest used-car dealer, Richmond-based CarMax Inc., have united to oppose the legislation. A news conference that they called yesterday to attack the bill turned partly into a victory gathering after opponents got word that Norment would pull the bill for this year.

CarMax announced its opposition to the measure in a news release, saying the bill does not protect the consumer and would shield unethical used-car dealers. "The [proposed] law would allow a dealer who knew the car had a defect, such as frame or flood damage, to sell it with impunity," CarMax said.
James Speer of the Virginia Poverty Law Center said many clients seen at legal-aid offices around the state have problems with vehicles. Many low-income clients end up losing their jobs because the car they bought could not get them to work, he said.

Surrounded by before-and-after photos of trucks and SUVs that had been badly wrecked and then repaired and resold, Gayle said an average consumer will look at a vehicle like that and think it is fine. Also, some people might not be able to afford the added expense of an inspection.

With roughly half a million vehicles hitting the market after being flooded by Gulf Coast hurricanes, now is not the time to make Virginia's auto-consumer law the weakest in the nation, Gayle said.

Norment said he understood that CarMax's interest in opposing the bill was philosophical as the company wants to improve the practices and perception of car dealers nationwide. Although he pulled his bill, Norment said he is no less resolved in fighting abusive litigation against dealers.

Norment said he did not agree with those who argued that his bill would open Virginia to a flood of defective hurricane-damaged vehicles.

Contact staff writer Greg Edwards at first gedwards@timesdispatch.com or (804) 649-6390

back to top

Virginia Independent Automobile Dealers Association Meeting

John Cole Gayle, Jr., of The Consumer Law Group, and two other consumer law experts made a presentation to the Virginia Independent Automobile Dealers Association at its September meeting. The subject was, “What legal violations by car dealers the experts look for in deciding what cases to take.” There was a good give and take with these small business owners about the impracticalities of abiding by certain requirements of federal and Virginia law in the sale of vehicles versus the risks of a lawsuit.

back to top

J. Smith v. Casey Chevrolet, Circuit Court of Newport News, Virginia:

Virginia has a statute called the “3% Rule,” which permits car dealers to sell vehicles that have been damaged and repaired, without having to disclose the damage and repair, if the retail cost of repair is less than 3% of the vehicle’s MSRP (Manufacturer’s Suggested Retail Price). In this case, in which Mr. Gayle is co-counsel for the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff bought a new Corvette, which he later discovered had been damaged prior to sale. When the Plaintiff confronted the dealer, Casey, it said the repairs were from “lot” damage, that they were minor, and that it did not have to tell him about them. Casey said the repairs cost less than $1,500, but the Plaintiff’s expert said the cost to repair the car properly would be over $5,000.00.

The court has ruled that the 3% Rule was not meant to allow car dealers to conceal any type of damage, such as “lot” damage, but only applies to pre-delivery factory damage or in-transit damage. Thus, Casey Chevrolet can not use the 3% Rule as a defense in this case unless the damage was from pre-delivery factory damage or in-transit damage. Car dealers in Virginia, and in other states that have similar rules, have been using this rule to conceal any damage done to new vehicles, whether from accidents in transit or on the lot. As is alleged in this case, sometimes a car dealer will make sure that the repairs it makes are half measures, keeping the cost under 3% of the “MSRP,” and then not mentioning anything to the new car buyer.

back to top

CLE Seminar

In April, 2005, John Cole Gayle, Jr., gave a statewide seminar, sponsored by Virginia Continuing Legal Education. The seminar contained information on the legal issues involved in purchasing new and used vehicles, including the sales tactics some car dealers use that violate the law that consumers should be aware of. The seminar also discussed post-sale issues, as well as Virginia’s Lemon Law.

back to top

CLE Seminar

In April, 2005, John Cole Gayle, Jr., gave a statewide seminar, sponsored by Virginia Continuing Legal Education. The seminar contained information on the legal issues involved in purchasing new and used vehicles, including the sales tactics some car dealers use that violate the law that consumers should be aware of. The seminar also discussed post-sale issues, as well as Virginia’s Lemon Law.

back to top

Charlie Falk Auto Wholesale, Inc. Pays Judgments

Serna Laury v. Charlie Falk Auto Wholesale, Inc.;
Stephanie Cruz v. Charlie Falk Auto Wholesale, Inc.

In these cases, John Cole Gayle, Jr., of The Consumer Law Group, obtained two judgments against Charlie Falk Auto Wholesale, Inc. (“Falk”), a Virginia used-car dealer. The judgments amounted to approximately $90,000, which included punitive damages for fraud in the sale of automobiles. Falk refused to pay these judgments, claiming lack of funds and that the company was going out of business. The dealership then re-opened under another name. Mr. Gayle then applied to a fund established by the state of Virginia for compensation of our client’s compensatory damages and attorney fees. This fund is set up to partially compensate consumers when dealerships go out of business after judgment for fraud. The maximum recovery is $20,000 per case. On the eve of receiving an award from the fund, and after Mr. Gayle advised Falk that he was filing another suit for fraudulently transferring assets during litigation, Falk capitulated and paid a compromise settlement of $81,000 to satisfy these judgments.

back to top

LifeSmarts State Competition

On March14, 2005, The Consumer Law Group was a sponsor of the state-level competition of “LifeSmarts...the ultimate consumer challenge.” This is a game-show competition which tests the knowledge of high school students across the state on important consumer information in an entertaining way, and rewards them for this knowledge. Competition questions are focused on four key areas of consumer knowledge that teens need to know to function effectively in today's marketplace. The winners of this competition move on to the National Competition in San Francisco, California. John Cole Gayle, Jr. also served as a judge in the finials of this event.

back to top

CONSUMER WATCH: Looking for options in tough cases

In a recent Richmond Times Dispatch article, Iris Taylor wrote about two arbitration rulings against Charlie Falk’s Auto Wholesale that John Cole Gayle, Jr. of The Consumer Law Group, won. Please be sure to read about Case Number 2 in the article.

Read More About CONSUMER WATCH: Looking for options in tough cases...

back to top

Fine Print Binds Car Buyers

On February 23, 2005, John Cole Gayle, Jr., of The Consumer Law Group, appeared on ABC World New Tonight. ABC news was covering a story about the binding arbitration clause that many consumers are forced to sign when they purchase a vehicle. The story was called “Reading the Fine Print...The legal rights you may be signing away without knowing it.”
To view a copy of the story, please go to:

Read More About Fine Print Binds Car Buyers...

back to top

Consumer Watch: Couple gets some relief in warranty case

CONSUMER WATCH: Couple gets some relief in warranty case
IRIS TAYLOR
RICHMOND TIMES-DISPATCH
POINT OF VIEW
Sunday, December 12, 2004

In January 2003, I wrote about Jerry and Angie Barnes' extended warranty ordeal with Haynes Jeep Chrysler on West Broad Street. The couple had purchased a used Jeep Grand Cherokee from Haynes and then paid $1,247.45 for a five-year extended warranty. They wound up saddled with about $4,000 worth of repairs on the Jeep, which should have been covered by the warranty, they said. To their surprise, the five-year contract expired in only two years. A five-year contract should last for five years, they said. When they asked that the warranty be reinstated for the remainder of the five years, Haynes balked and refused to reinstate it, or to reimburse them for repairs. The manager said the warranty expired five years from when the car was delivered to the original owner, not - as the Barneses understood it - five years after the vehicle's limited warranty expired. The two sides eventually deadlocked and Haynes stopped returning their calls and mine. So, the Barneses took their case to John Cole Gayle Jr. of The Consumer Law Group PC in Richmond. This week, Angie Barnes confirmed that Haynes Jeep Chrysler settled with them out of court for $8,000.

Haynes Jeep Chrysler had no comment for this article.
"I guess it's like David beating Goliath," said Angie Barnes. "I feel like we were able to stop Goliath a little bit and get some concessions where normally people would not have gotten any. I've got this feeling of satisfaction." Haynes Jeep also did not get the "gag order" that it sought, she said - another victory, of sorts. A gag order would have kept the details of the settlement private.
It was not a full victory, though.
"We never got our warranty rein stated and we're stuck with a car that has so many problems," said Barnes. "We can't afford to buy another car. That's why we had to hang on to it. We'd have to put so much into it to get anything on a trade-in.
Also, the Barneses had to split the settlement down the middle with the lawyer. "I guess I'm glad we at least got almost $4,000 to go toward what needs to be done," she said. "But, we're still out $4,000" for repairs already paid for.
Having gone through the ordeal, Barnes has this advice for consumers:
Have a lawyer review the warranty contract.
Be sure the warranty begins when you think it begins.
Don't buy a warranty until after you've read the contract. The Barneses signed the sales agreement, but said the contract was not mailed to them until about a month later.
Gayle, the lawyer, said the Barneses' persistence paid off. "The message is, if you're persistent and make complaints and force merchants such as car dealers to live up to their promises, even if it involves litigation, often you will get some - but, not necessarily all - of what you want in settlement."
He advises consumers who may be considering purchasing an extended vehicle warranty to, "as difficult as it is, read the extended warranty's language" and don't simply rely on discussions with the dealer's employees.

back to top

Virginia Lemon Law - Motor Vehicle Warranty Enforcement Act

TYPE OF ACTION: Virginia Lemon Law - Motor Vehicle Warranty Enforcement Act

Type of Damages: Full refund of money paid towards price of car, costs, attorney fees

Name of Case: W. and C. Williams v. Daimler Chrysler Corporation

Court: Henrico County Circuit Court

Name of Judge: The Honorable Daniel T. Balfour

Settlement: Last demand was to take the car and agree to payoff the loan which was approximately $15,000 plus pay attorney fees accumulated to that point (estimated to be about $10 -15K at that point). Chrysler refused, offered the client $5K while keeping the car.

Jury Award: $55,028.59
Breakdown: $33,829.76 for payments made to date, payoff of the lien and court costs, $23,250.00 in attorney’s fees (a compromised amount agreed upon by the parties), minus $2,051.17 for mileage). Plaintiff returned the vehicle

Attorney for Plaintiffs: John Cole Gayle, Jr.

Other Useful Information: This vehicle, a 2002 Jeep Liberty, resided in the Tidewater area and was used by Mr. Williams primarily for commuting. Plaintiffs first consulted counsel in March, 2003, when the Jeep had about 50,000 miles on it, but by the time of trial, in June 2004, it had over 90,000 miles. Counsel knew a car with 50,000K miles was a risk, but decided to take the case anyway. Mrs. Williams refused to drive it after it was purchased for her since she alleged the speedometer and odometer would fluctuate wildly on occasion and the air bag light coming on scared her. Both plaintiffs alleged that at times the engine ran rough, there was a banging and clanging in the engine, the engine would stall out, and the engine light would come on, and the air bag light would come on for a while then go out. Some of these problems began with the purchase of the car, and, despite numerous repair attempts both before the warranty expired and afterwards, some of the problems continued to exist up to the present mileage of 90,000 miles. At trial the only problem that Mr. Williams, the primary driver, testified to experiencing was the engine banging and air bag light, however Mrs. Williams claimed the electrical problems continued to exist. Chrysler’s expert could find nothing wrong with the vehicle. No expert for plaintiffs testified at the trial.

Shortly before trial Chrysler moved for a continuance since its expert could not appear in person, to which counsel for plaintiffs objected, which motion was denied. Prior to trial the court granted DaimlerChryler’s motion that any repairs made to the vehicle after the warranty ran out at 36,000 miles would not be admissible at trial, but on motion of plaintiffs’ counsel also ruled that, since no repair after warranty expiration at 36K miles was admissible, whatever happened to the vehicle after 36k miles, including the current mileage , was not be relevant and thus was not admissible. The court also ruled that the Lemon Law’s remedies are mandatory, and thus the jury’s only decision was that of liability. If the jury found the Lemon Law had been violated, then the remedy would be imposed by the court, along with a determination of what the reasonable attorney fees and costs would be.
The trial lasted one day, and the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiffs.

back to top

Dealership Found Guilty of Fraud, Jury Awards Punitive Damages

Richmond, Va., October 6, 2004. - A Henrico County jury has found a
Henrico County car dealership guilty of intentionally misrepresenting a vehicle as never having been in an accident when it knew it had a “Salvage History.”

The Circuit Court jury on Thursday, October 7, 2004, found that Windsor Auto Sales committed intentional fraud and violated the Virginia Consumer Protection Act when it described the 1996 Ford Bronco to the plaintiff as undamaged even though Windsor Auto had purchased the vehicle with an invoice that stated “Salvage History.” Windsor Auto’s owner testified that he told the plaintiff that the vehicle had been in an accident.

The jury awarded the plaintiff, Faye Teets, $6,000 in damages and awarded $34,000 punitive damages as well, Gayle said. The lawsuit was based on intentional fraud and a violation of the Virginia Consumer Protection Act.

“Ms. Teets was unaware that the vehicle had been in an accident. She even thought that car dealers had a duty to disclose whether a car they are selling has been in a wreck. Unfortunately, dealers most of the time do not volunteer this information,” Gayle said, “...and the buyer who trusts dealers to disclose damage during negotiations, is living in a dream world.”

“Many dealers either will not advise of any damage, or will disclose some damage claiming it is minor, and intentionally not check the rest of the car in order to remain 'wilfully blind' about the other damage in the car so they can claim ignorance if the vehicle is returned due to prior wreck damage. When a car has any damage, that is a red flag that there may be some hidden damage lurking in a less than obvious place, and that a detailed inspection is necessary. When a car dealer learns of any damage the reputable ones will inspect the car to see if there is other accident damage, and if they find significant damage, then they should return it to the previous owner," Gayle observed.

“This should be a warning to car dealers to stop selling cars unless they have done a thorough inspection, and if they find some damage, either return the car, or be honest to customers and take less of a profit." Gayle commented, “State inspections, nor the new fad, Car Fax reports, are no guarantee that a car has not been significantly damaged. The best way to avoid what happened here is to ask if the car has ever been damaged, and even if the answer is 'No,' demand that a body shop of your choice inspect it; if a dealer refuses to allow this, leave.”

The two-day case was tried before Circuit Judge Gary A. Hicks.

back to top

Back to Top
©2008 The Consumer Law Group, P.C., All Rights Reserved, Reproduced with Permission
Web Site Design, Search Engine Optimization, Optimized Video Services and Content Management System
by Foster Web Marketing