48 results for 'cat:"Vehicle" AND cat:"Contract"'.
J. Welling finds the lower court properly found for an insurer in an uninsured motorist coverage dispute. While the driver involved in the crash was not specifically listed as an excluded driver in the insurance policy's uninsured motorist benefits section, the policy language unambiguously excluded her from all coverage when it listed her at the outset of its declarations. Affirmed.
Court: Colorado Court Of Appeals, Judge: Welling, Filed On: October 5, 2023, Case #: 2023COA94, Categories: Insurance, vehicle, contract
Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for Free
J. Coulson grants in part a tractor trailer leaser's motion for summary judgment following allegations that it owes a towing and storage company money for the recovery and warehousing of 40,000 pounds of vinyl resin following a crash. The company is holding the resin until it receives payment for the recovery and ongoing storage costs based on a state law that defines its demand as a "garagemen's lien." However, the law excludes tractor trailers in its definition of "motor vehicle," preventing the company from applying the law.
Court: USDC Maryland, Judge: Coulson, Filed On: September 26, 2023, Case #: 1:22cv2409, NOS: Other Personal Property Damage - Torts - Personal Property, Categories: vehicle, Damages, contract
J. Kennelly grants an auto dealer’s motion to stay this contract case, brought by a consumer who bought a car with defective parts from the dealer, and compel arbitration instead. The court finds that the consumer agreed several times to an arbitration clause when he signed his car paperwork with the dealer.
Court: USDC Northern District of Illinois, Judge: Kennelly, Filed On: August 30, 2023, Case #: 123cv108, NOS: Other Fraud - Torts - Personal Property, Categories: Arbitration, vehicle, contract
J. Doughty denies summary judgment to both the manufacturer and a Louisiana seller a $350,000 motor home, declining to dismiss a suit by an equipment company based in Montana. There is a genuine issue of material fact regarding the redhibitory defects of the vehicle for which the manufacturer is allegedly responsible. Moreover, there is also a genuine dispute of a material fact regarding the waiver in the “buyer’s order” and its relationship to a service contract for both the dealership and the manufacturer, making summary judgment on these issues inappropriate.
Court: USDC Western District of Louisiana , Judge: Doughty, Filed On: August 29, 2023, Case #: 6:22cv871, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: vehicle, Warranty, contract
J. Deguilio grants summary judgment to an RV manufacturer in this matter concerning a warranty. A consumer purchased an RV with a limited warranty from the manufacturer. Finding a number of defects with the RV, he took it to two different authorized dealers for repair. Several of the issues were addressed, but the consumer was dissatisfied and filed suit against the manufacturer. Despite participating in mediation, a resolution could not be reached. The instant court finds no breach of contract or express warranty.
Court: USDC Northern District of Indiana, Judge: Deguilio, Filed On: August 2, 2023, Case #: 3:21cv222, NOS: Motor Vehicle - Torts - Personal Injury, Categories: vehicle, Warranty, contract
C.J. Bright finds the trial court erroneously granted the insurer's motion for summary judgment on the injured driver's uninsured motorist claim. Regardless of whether she or her employer rented the vehicle involved in the collision, she was driving a covered vehicle at the time of the accident and was entitled to recover the benefits awarded to the employer. Reversed.
Court: Connecticut Court Of Appeals, Judge: Bright, Filed On: July 28, 2023, Case #: AC45054, Categories: Insurance, vehicle, contract
J. Adkins disagrees with the lower court's decision to grant summary judgment to State Farm in a bad faith lawsuit brought by a passenger who was injured in a hit and run collision. State Farm refused to cover medical costs associated with the passenger's recovery. The passenger also filed a complaint with the state insurance administration, then the office of administrative hearings, both of which ended up in favor of State Farm. The lower court then said she was estopped from relitigating her claim because it constituted an independent civil claim, but this is incorrect because it was actually an appeal of the administration's decision. Reversed.
Court: The Appellate Court of Maryland, Judge: Adkins, Filed On: July 27, 2023, Case #: 475045V, Categories: Insurance, vehicle, contract
J. Talwani denies a former car owner’s motions for summary judgment and grants in part a financial institution’s motion for summary judgment following the prior car owner’s claims against the financial institution for fraud, perjury and coercion by counsel after it repossessed her car. The financial institution followed procedures set forth in its contractual agreement with the former car owner and did not harass, abuse or oppress her. It repeatedly communicated to her that she was in default and that a repossession was a potential consequence.
Court: USDC Massachusetts, Judge: Talwani, Filed On: July 5, 2023, Case #: 1:22cv10306, NOS: Consumer Credit - Other Suits, Categories: Debt Collection, vehicle, contract
J. Theriot finds that the trial court properly ruled in favor of the purchaser of a truck and rescinded the sale due to known defects that the seller allegedly failed to disclose. The seller's argument that there was a waiver of warranty as to redhibitory defects is without merit, and the evidence shows that it knew of the defects at the time of the sale. Affirmed.
Court: Louisiana Court Of Appeal, Judge: Theriot, Filed On: July 5, 2023, Case #: 2022CA1247, Categories: vehicle, Warranty, contract
J. Rodriguez finds a lower court ruled correctly when it ruled against a consumer who had sued an auto shop for warranty claims. The consumer argued that the auto shop had not adequately repaired her car because she continued to experience car issues even after repairs, but that consumer has provided “no evidence” of how the auto shop’s “conduct” caused her continued car problems. Affirmed.
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals, Judge: Rodriguez, Filed On: May 26, 2023, Case #: 08-22-00106-CV, Categories: vehicle, Warranty, contract