Landmark Cases
Johnson v. Earnhardt's Gilbert Dodge, Inc.
212 Ariz. 381, 132 P.3d 825
Ariz.,2006.
Arizona Supreme Court reversed trial court grant of summary judgment to dealer
defendant, ruling a used car dealer may be a party to service contract with a
consumer, thereby giving consumers implied warranty rights under federal law,
even where dealer sales contract disclaims all implied warranties in sales contract.
Moedt v. General Motors Corp.
204 Ariz. 100, 60 P.3d 240
Ariz.App. Div. 1,2002.
Arizona appellate court ruled automobile manufacturer was required to pay reasonable
attorney fees to consumer's lawyer pursuant to Lemon Law when settling case even
though no judgment on the merits was obtained.
Brophy v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.
932 So.2d 272
Fla.App. 2 Dist.,2005.
&
Mesa v. BMW of North America, LLC
904 So.2d 450
Fla.App. 3 Dist.,2005.
Florida Appellate courts ruled automobile lessees may bring breach of warranty
claims against automobile manufacturers under federal law, each court reversed
trial court rulings in favor of manufacturers dismissing claims.
Burns v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.
914 So.2d 451
Fla.App. 4 Dist.,2005.
Florida Appellate court ruled consumer may maintain claim for incidental and
consequential damages, including attorney fees, under federal even where consumer
has successfully prevailed under the Florida Lemon Law.
BACK TO TOP
Esmurdoc v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.
--- So.2d ----, 2004 WL 2347566
Fla.App. 3 Dist.,2004.
Florida appellate court ruled consumer may maintain breach of warranty claim
in court even when consumer signed binding arbitration clause with dealership,
ruled manufacturer was not beneficiary of clause intended to deprive consumer
of right to jury trial.
Rentas v DaimlerChrysler Corp.,
--- So.2d ----, 2006 WL 2419136
Fla. App. 4 Dist. 2006
Appellate court confirmed Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act creates private cause of
action for consumers against remote manufacturers, rejected automaker argument
federal warranty act did not apply.
Muller v. Winnebago Industries, Inc.
318 F.Supp.2d 844
D.Ariz.,2004.
Arizona Federal court held Better Business Bureau Autoline program, which is
wholly funded by the automotive industry, non-compliant with federal law based
on failure to award incidental damages such as loss of use and aggravation and
inconvenience damages, held consumer was not obligated to participate in Autoline
program before filing suit.
Miley v. Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc.
381 F.Supp.2d 839
S.D.Ind.,2005.
Federal Court denied Motor Home manufacturer's motion to dismiss class action
claim, consumer was permitted to proceed with claim of vioaltion of federal law
regarding full warranty disclaimers.
De Shazer v. National RV Holdings, Inc.
391 F.Supp.2d 791
D.Ariz.,2005.
Arizona federal court ruled consumer could mainatin case against final stage
motor home manufacturer for parts and components disclaimed in warranty where
warranty was confusing and did not clearly and plainly state included and excluded
parts.
Hillery v. Georgie Boy Mfg., Inc.
341 F.Supp.2d 1112
D.Ariz.,2004.
Arizona federal court ruled consumer's claim under federal warranty law was not
time barred, applying commercial code four year statute of limitations rather
than 6 month limitations period under Arizona lemon law as argued by manufacturer.
BACK TO TOP