Appellate Wins of the Law Offices of René Korper
Sometimes a party is dissatisfied with the jury’s verdict against it, and
files an appeal. Whether it is the manufacturer unhappy that the jury did
not accept its arguments, or the consumer whose rights were not upheld in
the trial court, the Law Offices of René Korper is usually willing to continue
representing its clients on appeal:
Following are some of the significant
appellate successes of The Law Offices of René Korper:
Jiagbogu v. Mercedes-Benz:
Mr. Jiagbogu purchased a 12-cylinder Mercedes sedan, which developed various
engine and transmission defects over time. At trial, Mercedes argued that,
because the vehicle had almost 100,000 miles on its odometer, Mr. Jiagbogu
had obtained full use of the vehicle, and so was not entitled to a refund.
Alternately, Mercedes argued that it should get a $46,000 credit for Mr.
Jiagbogu’s use of the vehicle. The trial judge sided with Mr. Jiagbogu and
rejected these arguments, and the jury decided in favor of Mr. Jiagbogu.
Mercedes appealed, and the appellate court not only rejected all of
Mercedes’s arguments, but also issued a published decision so that future
consumers would not have to face these arguments again from any warrantor.
JURY AWARD:
Purchase price refunded, Mercedes lost on
appeal.
Contreras v. Ford: Ms. Contreras purchased a brand new Saleen
Mustang that, shortly after purchase, began to backfire and experience
significantly reduced performance. The dealership advised Ms. Contreras to
add a supercharger to the vehicle to alleviate these concerns. After the
supercharger was added, Ford claimed that the aftermarket supercharger had
caused the problems with the vehicle, and that the installation of the
supercharger voided Ford’s warranty.
The trial judge decided that some of Ms. Contreras’s problems were minor
as a matter of law, and would not let the jury decide that part of her
case. The trial court also imposed a heavier burden of proof on Ms.
Contreras than the law allows, and gave jury instructions – proposed by Ford
– that misstated the law. The jury returned a verdict against Ms.
Contreras, but she appealed and the appellate court agreed with her.
JURY AWARD: Purchase price refunded after Defendants lost
on appeal.
Interlandi v. Mercedes-Benz: Mr. Interlandi purchased a
Mercedes-Benz SL 500, which consistently pulled to the right. Mercedes
claimed that the defect was minor and did not warrant a repurchase of the
vehicle. The jury found that Mercedes had violated the Song-Beverly Act,
but awarded $0 in damages. Mr. Interlandi appealed, arguing that, if
Mercedes violated the law, he was automatically entitled to a refund. The
appellate court agreed, and ordered a new trial only on the issue of the
amount of his damages. Mercedes repurchased the car after the Court of
Appeal decision.
JURY AWARD: Purchase price refunded after Mercedes lost on
appeal.
Eslamieh v. Coachman Industries: Mr. Eslamieh purchased a
defective Coachmen motor home, and the jury not only told Coachmen to refund
his money but also imposed a $175,000.00 civil penalty. Coachmen appealed
only the civil penalty, arguing that the trial court should have instructed
the jury that it could impose a civil penalty only if Coachmen had acted in
bad faith, with malice, or with some other “deliberate evil purpose.” The
appellate court agreed with Mr. Eslamieh that the jury could impose a civil
penalty on Coachmen because it found that Coachmen had intentionally refused
to refund Mr. Eslamieh’s money despite knowing that it ought to do so.
JURY AWARD: Purchase price refunded, $175,000.00 civil penalty
imposed,
Coachmen lost on appeal.
Mexia v. Rinker Boats: Mr. Mexia
purchased a Rinker boat. For approximately
three years the vessel functioned properly.
Then it began ingesting ocean water into the
engine. This problem, once it began,
continued to occur even after several repair
attempts. Rinker claimed that it was not
liable for Mr. Mexia’s damages because the
implied warranty of merchantability had a
duration of only one year and the defect did
not manifest until over one year after
purchase of the boat and brought a motion to
have the case dismissed against Rinker
Boats. The trial court agreed with Rinker
and dismissed the case as to Rinker. Mr.
Mexia appealed, claiming that although the
defect did not manifest until years later,
the defect was present at the time of
purchase and it therefore did not matter
that it was not discovered until later.
JURY AWARD:
The Court of Appeal agreed with Mr.
Mexia and reinstated the case, thereby
creating an important precedent in favor
of consumers. The defendants
repurchased the boat after the court’s
ruling.
Crocker v. Jaguar: This case went
to trial based on an engine problem and the
jury returned a verdict in favor of Mrs.
Crocker in the amount that she had paid for
the car and, in addition, awarded her a
civil penalty. Jaguar appealed the case
because evidence at trial revealed that the
dealership had sold her the top of the line
Jaguar but delivered a less expensive
model.
JURY AWARD:
The Court of Appeal held that there was
sufficient evidence of the discrepancy
between the vehicle bought and the one
delivered, that the evidence was
properly admitted, and that the verdict
would stand.
|
