Lemon Law for Consumers
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Legal Victories
|
 |
Weisberg & Meyers will fight for our client’s rights! Though most cases do not end up in court, our attorneys are experienced litigators who will take your case to whatever level is necessary to obtain the most successful resolution for a client and case. Please review the legal victories below.
Johnson v. Earnhardt's Gilbert Dodge, Inc.
State 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.
State appellate court ruled automobile manufacturer was required to pay reasonable attorney fees to consumer's lawyer pursuant to State Lemon Law when settling case even though no judgment on the merits was obtained.
Brophy v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.
& Mesa v. BMW of North America, LLC
State 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.
State 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 State Lemon Law.
Esmurdoc v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.
State 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.
State 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.
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.
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.
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.
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 State Lemon Law as argued by manufacturer.
