|
Your client buys a brand new SUV with a removable hardtop. When the doors are shut, the air pressure in the vehicle causes the lift gate hatch to pop open so that the rear clasp would lift 2 to 3 inches and then settles back into its manufactured position with a 1/8” gap between the window and frame. Your customer has the vehicle in for service and, without being satisfied with the end result, eventually files a Lemon Law claim against the manufacturer. The primary question is whether or not the allegedly defective hatch constituted a substantial non-conformity within the definition of Ohio’s Lemon Law. In the case of Iams v. DaimlerChrysler, (2007) 147 Ohio App.3d 537, the Third District Appellate Court did a very in-depth analysis of Ohio’s Lemon Law and the Federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. For purposes of a time-line, the complaint was filed and therefore, Plaintiff and Defendant both filed motions for summary judgment. The lower court ruled in favor of Chrysler on its motion for summary judgment and Plaintiff appealed. The issue on appeal was whether or not the Ohio Lemon Law statute was clear and unambiguous on its face. The court noted that several Courts have interpreted Ohio Lemon Law relative to its applicability to the consumer. As you well know, in order to prevail under Ohio’s Lemon Law, the plaintiff must establish pursuant to § 1345.71 et seq. (1) that he was the owner of a motor vehicle covered by a written warranty; (2) the vehicle does not conform to the applicable express warranty; (3) he reported the non-conformity to the manufacturer’s authorized dealer within one year following the original date of delivery or the first 18,000 miles of operation, whichever is earlier; and (4) the manufacturer’s authorized dealer was unable to conform the vehicle to the express warranty by repairing or correcting a defect that substantially impaired the use, safety or value of the vehicle after a reasonable number of attempts.
R.C. § 1345.72 defines “nonconformity” as “any defect or condition that substantially impairs the use, value or safety of a motor vehicle to the consumer and does not conform to the express warranty of the manufacturer or distributor.” The dispute regarding the interpretation of the statute revolves around three words; “to the consumer.” The Court goes into an extremely long dissertation regarding the definition of the word “to” and whether or not a subjective or objective determination should be utilized in determining whether a defect substantially impairs the value of vehicle “to the consumer.” The court rationalized that a subjective interpretation would mean that it is in the customer’s mind what he or she believes impairs the value of the vehicle, whereas an objective viewpoint is a reasonable person standard. As the court correctly pointed out, numerous jurisdictions have interpreted the statute both subjectively and objectively. The court, citing the Ohio Supreme Court, stated that the Lemon Law does not create remedies for buyers who have soured on their vehicles for cosmetic or other or other trivial reasons. Iams at 547. The vehicle’s problem must substantially impair the use, safety or value of the motor vehicle to the consumer. Further, the Court found that “the Lemon Law excludes claims outside a reasonable person’s notion of what constitutes an acceptable and actionable claim” and that valid Lemon Law claims involve major defects, not cosmetic or trivial defects. Id. at 548. The court correctly stated that an objective test is the best method to determine whether a defect is substantial in nature and that this will adequately protect the consumer and at the same time prevent trivial lawsuits over cosmetic or trivial defects. Again, the court correctly rationalized that, if the subjective standard is used, then practically any vehicle that is sold could be considered a lemon if the consumer, based upon his or her affidavit, claimed that any squeak, rattle or any trivial or cosmetic matter is in their mind a substantial defect. Therefore, this would defeat the purpose of the Lemon Law in that all the consumer has to do is claim a substantial defect and have the appropriate attempted amount of repairs to the subject vehicle which would negate the “substantial defect” portion of the Lemon Law.
It is interesting to note that the court found in favor of the manufacturer on the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. The Court stated that to prevail under the MMWA, Plaintiff must establish: (i) the item at issue is subject to warranty; (ii) the item did not conform to the warranty; (iii) the seller was given reasonable opportunity to cure any defects; and (iv) the seller failed to cure the defects within a reasonable time or a reasonable number of attempts. The court stated both causes of action are similar but not the same. It is possible to have a valid claim under Ohio’s Lemon Law which would also prove a valid claim under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. However, it is feasible for a consumer-plaintiff to have a valid claim under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act but not a valid claim under Ohio’s Lemon Law. Therefore, the courts must analyze each cause of action under Lemon Law and MMWA independently of each other.
This is an important decision in that, it narrowly interprets the applicability of Ohio’s Lemon Law relative to incidental, cosmetic or trivial defects in a vehicle that causes litigation for the dealership.
As you well know, in any Lemon Law scenario, generally the dealership is named as a party defendant under the theory of a Breach of Warranty and/or a violation of the Consumer Sales Practices Act.
As always, these are highlights of the law and are not to be construed as containing the entire law. This is not to be construed or relied upon as a legal opinion. If you are presented with this problem, contact your legal counsel for advice.
®Robert A. Poklar, 2008
___________________________________
VISIT OUR WEBSITE:
WWW.POKLARLAW.COM
|
