28 results for 'cat:"Vehicle" AND cat:"Warranty"'.
J. Drozd denies, in part, Toyota’s motion to dismiss putative class claims concerning defective sunroofs in 2021 RAV4 vehicles. The consumer has sufficiently alleged his claim for unjust enrichment and unfair competition, and for injunctive relief to have the defect repaired.
Court: USDC Eastern District of California, Judge: Drozd, Filed On: May 3, 2024, Case #: 2:23cv1464, NOS: Motor Vehicle Product Liability - Torts - Personal Injury, Categories: vehicle, warranty, Class Action
J. Novak denies Mercedes' motion to dismiss breach of warranty claims. A consumer purchased a van that, despite seven visits to three agents of the manufacturer, still does not function properly. The manufacturer wrongly claims the van doesn't fall under the federal warranty law because it is a commercial vehicle, but the consumer uses it as his personal vehicle.
Court: USDC Eastern District of Virginia, Judge: Novak, Filed On: April 18, 2024, Case #: 3:23cv755, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: vehicle, warranty, Contract
J. Fitzgerald finds in favor of Mercedes-Benz USA against the consumer's complaint that it sold a defective used 2017 Mercedes-Benz C300 but did not honor its new vehicle limited warranty, which extends “to the original and each subsequent owner of a new Mercedes- Benz vehicle that any authorized Mercedes-Benz Center will make any repairs or replacements necessary to correct defects in material or workmanship, but not design, arising during the warranty period.” Part of the warranty does not apply because the consumer bought the vehicle from CarMax, not Mercedes-Benz, and the other obligations do not apply because Mercedes-Benz did not breach the warranty when it provided free repairs to address the malfunctioning ECO start/stop feature during the warranty period.
Court: USDC Central District of California, Judge: Fitzgerald, Filed On: April 9, 2024, Case #: 2:23cv3049, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: vehicle, warranty, Contract
J. Roman grants a vehicle manufacturer’s motion to dismiss. A consumer brought suit against the manufacturer of 2022 Ram 1500, Ram 2500 and Ram 3500 Chassis Cab Vehicles with gross vehicle weight rating of less than 10,000 pounds. The consumer argues the vehicles were built with a defective rearview camera system that causes them to function intermittently or completely fail, and as a result the vehicles have diminished value and decreased performance. But the court finds the consumer suffered no injury in this matter as the manufacturer voluntarily participated in a recall for the issue, administered by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, so that any consumer with that vehicle could have the issue resolved completely at no cost. Dismissed.
Court: USDC Southern District of New York, Judge: Roman, Filed On: April 8, 2024, Case #: 22cv9993, NOS: Motor Vehicle - Torts - Personal Injury, Categories: vehicle, warranty
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. Marbley grants, in part, GM's motion for summary judgment on a warranty claim, ruling that although the car owner was forced to take his vehicle to a service center on multiple occasions because of the "shifter issue," he was provided a rental car free of charge or waited for repairs to be made and, therefore, cannot establish damages for loss of use under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.
Court: USDC Southern District of Ohio, Judge: Marbley, Filed On: March 25, 2024, Case #: 2:21cv924, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: vehicle, Damages, warranty
J. Stanfill finds the lower court improperly overturned a ruling in a small claims action for the purchasers of a used car, a 2011 Volvo, that allegedly had problems with the catalytic converters. It is unclear the evidence could not support a finding that the dealer breached the warranty of inspectability. Accordingly, the matter is remanded to affirm the small claims judgment. Vacated.
Court: Maine Supreme Court, Judge: Stanfill, Filed On: March 7, 2024, Case #: 2024ME18, Categories: vehicle, Product Liability, warranty
J. Evans holds that the appeals court erred in reducing the restitution damages a vehicle buyer was awarded by the amount the buyer recovered by trading in the defective vehicle. The restitution amount may not be offset by a trade-in credit or sales proceeds where a manufacture's failure to comply with the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act forces a buyer to trade in or sell a defective vehicle. Reversed.
Court: California Supreme Court, Judge: Evans, Filed On: March 4, 2024, Case #: S266034, Categories: vehicle, Damages, warranty
J. D'Auria finds the trial court properly denied the car buyer's request for additional damages following a jury verdict in her favor. The issue of whether she revoked her acceptance of the vehicle after mechanical problems was specifically decided by the jury and the damages they awarded covered that portion of her claim. Additionally, it was not inequitable for the court to decline the buyer's request because the jury's award of damages equal to the amount of payments made on the car loan, and not the full purchase price of the vehicle, restored the buyer to the same financial position as she was in at the outset of the contract. Affirmed.
Court: Connecticut Supreme Court, Judge: D'Auria, Filed On: January 26, 2024, Case #: SC20774, Categories: vehicle, Damages, warranty
J. Drozd denies, in part, FedEx’s motion to dismiss a fleet van dealer’s odometer fraud and other claims related to FedEx’s alleged sale of almost 100 vans with double or triple the advertised mileage. The dealer has sufficiently alleged its claims for odometer fraud, intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, breach of implied warranty of merchantability and others.
Court: USDC Eastern District of California, Judge: Drozd, Filed On: January 18, 2024, Case #: 2:17cv1732, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: Fraud, vehicle, warranty
J. Holcomb finds in favor of Mercedes-Benz USA against the customer’s complaint accusing the company of refusing to repair or replace a defective 2021 Mercedes-Benz GLA250W. The customer leased the defective vehicle from Mercedes-Benz of Ontario, an MBUSA-affiliated dealership, but MBUSA was not implicated in the customer’s lease and it did not provide a new warranty for the vehicle, meaning it is not liable for any defects.
Court: USDC Central District of California, Judge: Holcomb, Filed On: January 8, 2024, Case #: 5:21cv1914, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: vehicle, warranty, Contract
J. Drozd denies, in part, Toyota’s motion to dismiss a putative class action pertaining to allegedly defective sunroofs in 2021 RAV4 vehicles. The consumer has adequately pleaded their warranty and unjust enrichment claims.
Court: USDC Eastern District of California, Judge: Drozd, Filed On: January 8, 2024, Case #: 2:23cv1464, NOS: Motor Vehicle Product Liability - Torts - Personal Injury, Categories: vehicle, warranty, Class Action
J. Fitzgerald denies in part Porsche's motion to dismiss a consumer's Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act claims. The consumer alleges that in the 2021 Taycan he leased, Apple CarPlay does not work consistently, the heat does not work, and the SmartLift system does not consistently work, resulting in the car scraping the ground. The consumer sufficiently pleaded that the car has a defect, that he repeatedly sought repairs and that he has statutory standing to bring his claims.
Court: USDC Central District of California, Judge: Fitzgerald, Filed On: December 19, 2023, Case #: 2:23cv6465, NOS: Other Fraud - Torts - Personal Property, Categories: Fraud, vehicle, warranty
J. Trauger partially grants Nissan's dismissal motion in this lawsuit concerning a certain type of transmission included in particular Nissan vehicles. The vehicle owners contend that the "continuously variable transmission" was defective. The court will dismiss the claim under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act as untimely. Also, some of the states involved "require privity between parties in order for a plaintiff to assert a claim for breach of implied warranty for economic losses," and those claims will be dismissed accordingly.
Court: USDC Middle District of Tennessee , Judge: Trauger, Filed On: November 6, 2023, Case #: 3:22cv709, NOS: Motor Vehicle Product Liability - Torts - Personal Injury, Categories: vehicle, Product Liability, warranty
J. Chesney allows consumer warranty claims to continue against Honda over claims that its 2016-2020 Honda Civic and Accord cars have defective "infotainment" systems, such as defective navigation systems and display screens. There is enough evidence on the record to sufficiently allege that certain defects are widespread and problematic enough to continue the suit, while a handful of other claims are tossed for being time-barred.
Court: USDC Northern District of California, Judge: Chesney, Filed On: September 7, 2023, Case #: 3:22cv6625, NOS: Other Fraud - Torts - Personal Property, Categories: vehicle, warranty, Class Action
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
J. Frensley recommends that the dismissal motion be granted in this pro se lawsuit concerning a 2015 Nissan Altima, which was allegedly damaged by saltwater and caused the owner to have an accident. The owner's claim for restitution is moot, as he was issued a check by his insurance company "to cover the totaled vehicle."
Court: USDC Middle District of Tennessee , Judge: Frensley, Filed On: July 17, 2023, Case #: 3:21cv955, NOS: Commerce - Other Suits, Categories: Insurance, vehicle, warranty
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. Doughty denies a request by the Texas-based manufacturer of a recreational vehicle to dismiss or transfer on jurisdictional grounds, claims by two Louisiana residents who allege their RV is defective. The RV malfunctioned in Louisiana, and the manufacturer directed the litigants to an authorized repair center in Louisiana which began the repair process and documented the repairs required by the manufacturer. The unhappy customers have also shown that their legal claims result from their Louisiana contacts. Because the litigants’ claims are related to the RV-maker’s activities in Louisiana, it is not unreasonable to subject the manufacturer to suit in a Louisiana court. The ruling is based on a magistrate judge's report.
Court: USDC Western District of Louisiana , Judge: Doughty, Filed On: June 16, 2023, Case #: 1:22cv138, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: vehicle, Jurisdiction, warranty
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
J. Grosjean recommends dismissing, in part, an individual’s fraudulent inducement and warranty claims against Nissan pertaining to an allegedly defective 2022 Sentra. The individual fails to sufficiently support his fraud claim, as he does not show the manufacturer had knowledge of the alleged defect before the vehicle was sold.
Court: USDC Eastern District of California, Judge: Grosjean, Filed On: May 18, 2023, Case #: 1:22cv1581, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: Fraud, vehicle, warranty