Case Name: Quinn v. BMW of North America, LLC
Venue: Office of the Attorney General, Florida New Motor Vehicle Arbitration Board
Complaints: Alignment. The vehicle pulled to the right while driving.
Defenses: According to the Manufacturer, the vehicle was operating as designed.
Outcome: Repurchase and refund. The Board found that the alignment issues substantially impared the use, value and safety of the vehicle.
Case Name: Eiroa v. Mercedes-Benz USA Inc
Venue: Office of the Attorney General, Florida New Motor Vehicle Arbitration Board
Complaints: Upholstery. The vehicle exhibited a stain in the front passenger seat.
Defenses: According to the Manufacturer, the stain was cosmetic and insubstantial.
Outcome: Repurchase and refund. The Board found that the stain constituted a nonconformity.
Case Name: Kabeche v. Volkswagen/Audi of America Inc.
Venue: Office of the Attorney General, Florida New Motor Vehicle Arbitration Board
Complaints: Electrical System. The vehicle exhibited various electrical issues.
Defenses: According to the Manufacturer, the problems were caused by a rodent chewing through the wiring harness of some wires.
Outcome: Repurchase and refund. The Board found that the Manufacturer’s defense was unsupported by the evidence.
Case Name: Patrick v. DaimlerChrysler Motor Company LLC
Venue: Office of the Attorney General, Florida New Motor Vehicle Arbitration Board
Complaints: Alignment, Vibration. The vehicle exhibited an unusual amount of vibration.
Defenses: According to the Manufacturer, the vibration was the result of aftermarket tires.
Outcome: Repurchase and refund. The Board found the vibration substantially impaired the use and value of the vehicle.
Case Name: Kaplan v. Mazda Motor of America Inc.
Venue: Office of the Attorney General, Florida New Motor Vehicle Arbitration Board
Complaints: Alignment. The vehicle’s rear wheels were unable to sustain proper alignment.
Defenses: According to the Manufacturer, the unusual tire wear was the result of abusive driving.
Outcome: Repurchase and refund. The Board found the Manufacturer’s defense unsupported by the evidence.
Case Name: Thatcher v. Ford Motor Company
Venue: Office of the Attorney General, Florida New Motor Vehicle Arbitration Board
Complaints: Air Conditioner. The vehicle intermittently exhibited a foul, sulfur and egg stink odor.
Defenses: According to the Manufacturer, there was no unusual odor.
Outcome: Repurchase and refund. The Board found that the odor substantially impaired the use and value of the vehicle.
Case Name: Hess v. Ford Motor Company
Venue: Office of the Attorney General, Florida New Motor Vehicle Arbitration Board
Complaints: Electrical System. The vehicle’s Sync system failed to operate properly, causing problems with the heat, air conditioning, audio and Bluetooth.
Defenses: According to the Manufacturer, the system was operating as designed and the problem at issue was typically the result of compatibility issues with the type of cell phone used.
Outcome: Repurchase and refund. The Board found that the intermittent failure of the Sync system to operate properly substantially impaired the use, value and safety of the vehicle.
Case Name: Kagan v. Toyota Motor Sales USA, Inc.
Venue: Office of the Attorney General, Florida New Motor Vehicle Arbitration Board
Complaints: Defrost. The vehicle’s rear window took too long to defrost.
Defenses: According to the Manufacturer, the vehicle was operating as designed.
Outcome: Repurchase and refund. The Board found that the defrost issue substantially impaired the use, value and safety of the vehicle.
Case Name: Bryant v. Hyundai Motor America
Venue: Office of the Attorney General, Florida New Motor Vehicle Arbitration Board
Complaints: Engine. The engine seized due to a mistake made during an oil change at the dealership.
Defenses: According to the Manufacturer, the defect was a result of an accident at the dealership, not a manufacturing defect.
Outcome: Repurchase and refund. The Board found that a defect resulting from the Manufacturer’s authorized service agent constituted a nonconformity as defined in the statute.
Case Name: Schuh v. Mercedes-Benz USA Inc.
Venue: Office of the Attorney General, Florida New Motor Vehicle Arbitration Board
Complaints: Air Conditioner, Odor. The vehicle exhibited a strong, must odor when first started.
Defenses: According to the Manufacturer, the problem was resolved and did not substantially impair the use, value or safety of the vehicle.
Outcome: Repurchase and refund. The Board found that the odor substantially impaired the use and value of the vehicle.
This blog is maintained by the Law Office of Andrew Kleppinger, a law firm representing consumers in disputes against motor vehicle dealers and manufacturers. Please visit the firm website at kleppingerlaw.com
