Some of the significant trial successes of The Law Office of René Korper.
When reviewing these cases, please keep in mind that the
vast majority of the cases that the firm handles – over 90% – settle without
the need for a trial. When the warrantor of a defective product chooses to
go to trial against us, however, here are some of the results:
CARS
Crocker v. Jaguar: Mrs. Crocker purchased a new Jaguar car.
Shortly after purchase the vehicle’s engine started to make pinging sounds,
and she brought the vehicle to the dealership for repairs. The dealership,
and later Jaguar itself tried to convince Mrs. Crocker that the noise was
normal operation of the vehicle, and on several occasions refused to do any
repairs for the engine concern. At trial Mrs. Crocker’s expert witness
testified that the noise was not normal and in fact was detonation (abnormal
engine combustion) in the engine that, over time, would prematurely wear the
engine out.
JURY AWARD: The jury agreed and awarded Mrs.
Crocker the price that she paid for the vehicle and also awarded her a
civil penalty because of Jaguar’s actions in addressing the claim.
Cole v. Mercedes-Benz: Mr. Cole purchased a new Mercedes E-Class,
which began to experience very intermittent loss of braking ability for 2-3
seconds. Because of the intermittency of the brake defect, no mechanics
ever verified it. Mercedes claimed that, because the problem was never
verified, it did not exist.
JURY AWARD: Purchase price refunded.
Chen v. Mercedes-Benz: This case involved an intermittent
transmission defect in an E-Class Mercedes. Mercedes claimed that it was
unable to verify the problem. Ms. Chen’s expert witness, however, was able
to verify it.
JURY AWARD: Purchase price refunded.
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 that, therefore, the defects had not impaired the value of the
vehicle to him. Mercedes also claimed that all the defects of which Mr.
Jiagbogu complained had been repaired.
JURY AWARD: Purchase price refunded. Mercedes appealed, but
lost again.
Hayes v. General Motors: Mr. Hayes purchased a brand new
Chevrolet Camaro Z28. Shortly after purchase he noticed that there were
large areas of rust and corrosion underneath the vehicle. General Motors
claimed that rust on the undercarriage of a new vehicle was normal. General
Motors also claimed that, because the rust could not be seen unless the
vehicle was hoisted off of the ground, the defect was minor and did not
warrant a repurchase.
JURY AWARD: Purchase price refunded, maximum civil penalty
imposed.
Carranza v. Honda: The Carranzas purchased a new Honda vehicle,
which manifested engine-control problems shortly after purchase. The
Carranzas had added various aftermarket electrical devices to their vehicle
after purchase, but also after the electrical problems had already arisen.
Honda claimed that the engine problems were due to the installation of the
aftermarket devices and that, consequently, Honda was not responsible for
the Carranzas’ problems.
JURY AWARD: Purchase price refunded.
Rosenthal v. Mercedes-Benz: Dr. Rosenthal purchased a
Mercedes-Benz SL 55 AMG convertible for over $160,000.00. Right after
purchase, Dr. Rosenthal noticed a chirping “like the sound of crickets”
emanating from behind the driver’s seat of the vehicle. The noise was not
audible at freeway speeds. Mercedes was aware that all SL 55s had this
problem: it had determined that the noise was coming from a special pump in
the fuel tank, and was working on a fix. After several months of Mercedes
telling Dr. Rosenthal that the fix was not available, Dr. Rosenthal sought
legal help. At trial, Mercedes claimed that the noise was minor and did not
warrant a repurchase of the vehicle. The original jury was unable to reach
a verdict. While awaiting retrial, Mercedes made an offer to settle for
less than a full repurchase. Dr. Rosenthal elected to retry the case.
JURY AWARD: Purchase price refunded, civil penalty imposed.
Lo Sauro v. Reseda Dodge: Mr. Lo Sauro purchased a used Chrysler
Camaro from Reseda Dodge. He experienced problems with it, so he decided to
trade it in for something else after owning it less than a year. When he
tried, however, he discovered that the vehicle had substantial frame damage,
which someone had tried unsuccessfully to repair. Reseda Dodge argued that
it did know about the frame damage; that the damage was purely cosmetic; and
that Mr. Lo Sauro might have been in an accident and caused the damage
himself. The jury disagreed, finding Reseda Dodge liable under both the
Song-Beverly Act and the Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA).
JURY AWARD: Purchase price of $22,299.60 refunded, less $3,000.00
because Mr. Lo Sauro was allowed to keep vehicle.
TRUCKS AND
VANS
Lombardi v. Chrysler: Mr. Lombardi had a Dodge van with habitual
driver’s-side-window problems. The windows would stick or come off of the
track. Repeated attempts by Chrysler to repair this situation were
ineffective. At the time of trial, the vehicle had over 100,000 miles on
the odometer.
JURY AWARD: Purchase price refunded, civil penalty imposed.
Tucker v. General Motors: Mr. Tucker purchased a Chevrolet 1500
pickup truck. It was his first new vehicle. Unfortunately, the vehicle
developed transmission complaints after sale, and General Motors did not
repair them after several opportunities. General Motors claimed that the
defects were a result of abuse by Mr. Tucker. The jury disagreed.
JURY AWARD: Purchase price refunded.
Shirley v. Mercedes-Benz: Mr. Shirley purchased a Mercedes G500
sport utility vehicle, which developed a series of pervasive electrical
problems. Mercedes claimed that each problem was different, and that each
time an electrical problem developed the dealership had been able to repair
that problem. Consequently, Mercedes argued that Mr. Shirley was not
entitled to a repurchase, because no individual electrical problem was
subject to repair more than twice.
JURY AWARD: Purchase price refunded.
Seymour v. Ford: Ms. Seymour was sold a Ford Explorer that was
labeled a four-wheel drive vehicle. The vehicle came complete with a
four-wheel drive emblem. It turned out that the vehicle was actually a
standard drive vehicle.
JURY AWARD: Award of the difference between the value of the
vehicle as represented versus as purchased.
RECREATIONAL VEHICLES
Mastro v. Gulf Stream Coach, Inc: The Mastros purchased a
new Gulf Stream motor home. At the time of purchase they told the dealer
and Gulf Stream that they wanted a four seasons coach because they used the
vehicle for ski and snowboarding, which their children were competitive in.
Specifically, the Mastros wanted holding tanks that were blanket and furnace
heated. They were told that the motor home came with these heated tanks
when in fact it did not.
JURY AWARD: After the close of evidence, but before
the jury returned a verdict Gulf Stream agreed to repurchase the coach.
Jackson v. Weekend Warrior: The Jacksons purchased a new 5th
Wheel Toy Hauler. With time, the glue that held the walls to the frame of
the trailer began to delaminate. Weekend Warrior claimed that the
delamination of the walls was not a substantial defect because the walls
were still supported by staples and by the exterior aluminum siding. The
Jackson’s expert testified that neither the staples nor the exterior siding
provided the necessary shear strength that the walls needed without the glue
adhesive.
JURY AWARD: The jury awarded the Jacksons the
purchase price of the 5th wheel.
Marciel v. Beaver: Mr. and Mrs. Marciel purchased a Beaver motor
home for more than $300,000.00. It manifested numerous problems, including
an electrical defect that would drain the chassis batteries so the motor
home wouldn’t even start. They brought it in at least 15 times for lengthy
repairs, and the motor home was in the shop for over 400 days in less than
two years. Despite this, the defendants argued that they were entitled to
more repair attempts. They also argued that their warranty had expired
while the motor home was in for repairs, and that Mr. and Mrs. Marciel had
caused their own problems by failing to maintain the motor home properly.
JURY AWARD: Purchase price refunded.
Eslamieh v. Coachmen: Mr. Eslamieh purchased a Coachmen motor
home that developed two problems. First, there was a whistling noise from
the front end of the vehicle; second, there were continuous problems with
the main slide-out. At one point the slide-out actually came out by itself
while the coach was making a turn in traffic. Coachmen’s defense was its
claim that it could still repair all of the defects in the motor home.
JURY AWARD: Purchase price refunded, $175,000.00 civil penalty
imposed.
Birozy v. Fleetwood: Mr. and Mrs. Birozy purchased a Fleetwood
fifth-wheel travel trailer. Whenever they went camping at a trailer park
and plugged into the park’s electrical box, if the water heater, air
conditioner, and refrigerator were all on at the same time, the main circuit
breaker would trip. Fleetwood claimed that this condition was normal, and
that all three components could not be used on electrical power at the same
time. Fleetwood therefore maintained that there was no defect at all.
JURY AWARD: Purchase price refunded.
BOATS & WATERCRAFT
Hovsepian v. Eliminator Boats: Mr. Hovsepian purchased a new
custom Stoker boat built by Eliminator and John’s Custom Marine. Shortly
after purchase, Mr. Hovsepian noticed that the vessel was leaking water and
that it would “hobbyhorse” when pulling a skier. Mr. Hovsepian claimed
that the design of the boat was defective. Defendants claimed that they
manufactured the boat in accordance with Mr. Hovsepian’s specifications, and
that, consequently, they were not at fault. The jury disagreed.
JURY AWARD: Purchase price refunded, civil penalty imposed.
Saylan v. Mercury Marine: Mr. and Mrs. Saylan purchased a vessel
with two outboard Mercury Optimax engines. The vehicle was purchased for
marine research purposes. The engines developed serious injector problems
that caused the vessel, over time, to become totally unusable. Mercury
claimed that it had fixed all of the defects.
JURY AWARD: Purchase price of the engines refunded.
A Final Thought
Warrantors often try to negotiate fast but inadequate settlements of
lemon law claims, and threaten to go to trial if their offers are not
accepted. When The Law Office of René Korper represents the consumers, however,
warrantors know that such tactics do not work. We will not buckle under if
a warrantor wrongfully refuses to pay the amount to which the consumer is
legally entitled, but will take the case to trial if necessary. Warrantors
also know our record of trial successes. This discourages warrantors from
trying to bluff us, and actually increases the number of cases that are
ultimately settled without trial.
Each case is different. To find out whether you qualify
for relief under the lemon law,
Call Us For A Free Professional
Evaluation |
