SoCalLemonLaw.com Blog

It’s now public: Maserati re-tooled its transmission in its Quattroporte luxury sedans because the manual and the automatic modes simply did not work well together. This tranny problem particularly affects the 2004 to 2006 model years.

“Didn’t work well together” is a serious understatement. One of our clients was nearly killed on the freeway when the car stalled on shifting repeatedly at freeway speeds. This was one of but many failures by this vehicle’s transmission.

If you have one of these cars and you need to work with someone who already knows the Maserati transmission story, please don’t hesitate to call us & thanks for reading.

Bob Brennan

Two posts in one day? What, too much caffeine, Bob? No, I’m just addressing some of the questions we’ve been hearing frequently from consumers contacting us for assistance or advice.

Evidently some dealers and manufacturers have been telling consumers of leased vehicles that they do not have the same “lemon law” rights when they lease cars. This is not accurate. The fact of a lease does have some impact upon a consumer’s lemon law rights, but the consumer yet retains substantially the same lemon law rights as purchasers of vehicles. Here are the points you need to know:

1. In a lease, you really do not have any equity in the car so your damages are usually limited to your inception payment and your payments into the vehicle. If the manufacturer or dealer agrees to unwind the lease, you need to make sure that the lease is being paid off in the settlement so this does not remain an obligation which ultimately could affect your credit.
2. Many manufacturers argue for a larger “mileage offset” for leases, because, they claim, the mileage on the vehicle is a greater percentage of the more limited period of the lease as opposed to the longer period of “permanent ownership” in the event of a sale. This is a negotiation point to be worked out on a case-by-case basis, depending upon the total circumstance.
3. In general, if you wait until late into the lease to bring your lemon law claim, the manufacturers will more than likely ignore you on the basis that your lease is substantially used up. So, for instance, if you have a three-year lease and you bring your lemon law claim after 18 months, you stand a far greater chance of getting a good result than if you wait until 28 months into the lease. The longer you wait, the more likely the manufacturer will just sit back and say, “The lease is almost up–let’s ignore this lemon law claim.”
4. Many leases include a “residual value” (agreed-upon value upon lease expiration, most frequently used to calculate the cost of purchasing the vehicle) as a part of the lease. If the residual value is less than the total lease payoff, some manufacturers try to “sucker” consumers into believing that the manufacturer is only responsible for paying the residual value, not the lease pay-off, when the case settles. Ignore this crap. If you win your lemon law claim, you have a right to have your lease completely paid off. Settlements may vary and, depending on the circumstances, may or may not accomplish complete payoff of the lease, but this is no reason to buy into this poor argument from manufacturers that the residual value has anything to do with settling the case.
5. If you exceed your mileage allotment significantly, this will negatively affect the strength of your lemon law claim. As with all lemon law cases, if you can afford to limit your driving of the vehicle, or even park it, this will improve chances of winning and of getting full compensation.
6. Whether you buy the car at lease expiration is up to you, and you can continue with your lemon law claim on a leased vehicle even if the lease is expired and you have had to turn in your car. However, since you no longer have the car, the case is obviously worth less total money and it usually makes more sense to settle for some cash compensation once the vehicle’s lease has expired.
7. If you have a lease fraud or a finance fraud claim, this normally is not treated as a lemon law claim and involves a whole different set of rights about which you should consult us directly.

I hope these brief pointers help out with those of you out there who have leased their vehicles. Thanks for reading.

Bob Brennan

Hello again.

When I started doing consumer protection law, the only dealerships which would sell used cars “as-is” were the smaller dealerships, never the major franchise dealerships. Now we’re seeing more and more major franchise dealerships selling used cars “as-is”, so it’s worth writing to you so that you have an accurate idea of what your rights are in an “as-is” transaction. Here is a list of the pertinent “rules of the road” for “as-is” transactions, under California law:

1. If the dealer or manufacturer gives or sells you ANY kind of a warranty or a service contract in connection with the sale of the vehicle, the sale is not “as-is” even if you sign an “as-is” statement (called a “Buyer’s Guide” in the industry). At the very least, you would have an implied warranty that the vehicle is “merchantable”, i.e. would pass as acceptable in the industry under the circumstances of the sale, if the vehicle is sold with a service contract or any kind of warranty.
2. Any “as-is” disclosure must be very conspicuous. On a Buyer’s Guide, you’ll commonly see the “as-is” box in minimum 20-point bold type, easy for the eye to see. If you have signed a contract with a “small-print” or concealed “as-is” clause, that “as-is” clause is probably not valid.
3. An “as-is” transaction, if done properly, gets rid of any express or implied warranty on the vehicle, but it does not excuse the dealer or manufacturer for fraud or nondisclosure. We’re seeing more and more cars with undisclosed collision damage or tampered odometers being sold to consumers at major dealerships. These dealerships believe they are insulating themselves from liability by having the consumer sign an “as-is” disclosure, but this simply is not true. “As-is” eliminates the warranty and the specific legal rights arising from the warranty, but it does not eliminate a consumer’s claim for fraud or causes of action in California which resemble fraud, such as the Consumer Legal Remedies Act.

The long and short of it: I always recommend that consumers get at least some kind of warranty because it will give them rights down the road if the car is a complete lemon. However, if you buy a car “as-is”, it is not the end of the road for you in terms of making a claim against the dealer or manufacturer for fraud or nondisclosure. There are particular situations, such as undisclosed collision damage, tampered odometers and “lemon law buyback” vehicles, where my firm has an excellent record of success even though we sometimes have to bring such actions over an “as-is” clause. The “as-is” clause also does not affect claims of finance fraud or lease fraud, as elsewhere covered in this blog.

Thanks for taking the time to read this. I hope it is of use to you and your family and friends.

Bob Brennan

Slide-outs, or slide rooms, are the rule, rather than the exception, in later-model motorhomes. For those of you who do not know that a “slide-out” is, it’s a portion of the coach which actually moves out when the coach is parked and retracts when it’s time to drive. Thus, the owners of the motorhome get a larger living room, kitchen, etc. because the slide-out makes the room bigger.

Modern RV’s have as many as four or five slide-outs per unit.

The only real problem with slide-outs is, however, they don’t always work very well. Some indeed work fine, but in actuality they are fairly complex units sitting within a coach which itself is large and complex. The science of slide-outs has, indeed, not kept up with their popularity.

We have a trial coming up against Fleetwood for slide-out defects–three slide-outs that won’t close all the way, leaving gaps through which bees, moisture, ants, vermin, etc. can get in. My clients, elderly retired folks, can’t rest easily in the coach and also cannot get warm on cold evenings. Definitely a problem, but Fleetwood likes to take it to the mat sometimes.

We’ll keep you posted on trial progress and outcome. Thanks for reading.

Bob Brennan

Hello,

For some time, my clients have known that my firm consistently opposes efforts by big corporations, car dealers, credit card companies and the like to deprive consumers of their rights to have their disputes decided in a court of law with “binding arbitration agreements” often hidden in consumer finance and purchase contracts. You rarely see the binding arbitration agreement in anything you sign; in fact, sometimes big corporations trick consumers into “signing” binding arbitration agreements by putting them into fine-print bill-stuffers so they’re not read. These “agreements” provide that you have agreed to binding arbitration and a waiver of any class action remedies if you even use your credit card after having received the bill-stuffer for a single charge. Fair? Hardly.

Big corporations have for years argued that binding arbitration is really fair, and that’s why big corporations are really doing everyone a favor by depriving them of their right to choose to go to court. Mind you, my firm is not opposed to choice: if a consumer wants to go to binding arbitration with a single arbitrator or retired judge, and wants to go there voluntarily, we’re happy to go that route, but we always insist that the client should have the choice.

Binding arbitration agreements deprive consumers of the choice to go to court. That’s precisely what they’re designed to do, and that’s why big corporations, car dealers, etc. hide them in small print in the midst of the multi-page consumer contracts that they force people to sign.

Some of my clients, however, have posed the question to me: what is unfair about binding arbitration? The arbitrator is supposed to be fair, right? Well, the answer is no. Corporations usually use captive arbitration providers, such as JAMS, NAF (National Arbitration Forum) or AAA (American Arbitration Association), where the corporation, NOT the consumer, is the repeat customer. The judges know that their paychecks and their repeat business comes from the corporations, not from the consumers, so these forums are hardly impartial.

If you have any remaining doubts about whether these forums are impartial, consider one of their biggest proponents: Dick Cheney. Our venerable Vice President has done pretty much everything within his power, and quite a few things very much outside of his power, to make a mockery of our system of justice. His recent refusal to comply with legal and congressional subpoenas is but a “tip of the Cheney iceberg,” towards which our ship of state is sadly headed.

Cheney’s distaste for pesky little things like constitutional guarantees, the Bill of Rights and due process of law date back to his Halliburton days, if not before. In the 1990’s, when Cheney was CEO of Halliburton, he tricked all of the employees of Halliburton and its subsidiaries into “signing” binding arbitration agreements simply by showing up to work. In other words, the company sent out a fine-print notice indicating that by the simple act of showing up to work, you had consented to waive your right to trial by jury and consented to having any disputes against Halliburton decided by in a binding arbitration. Halliburton has a long history of terminating workers who have filed worker’s comp claims and has a reputation of firing or laying off “the old, the sick and the halt,” so it’s little wonder Halliburton decided that none of its employees deserved any right to a jury trial.

Fast forward to 2005, and Jamie Leigh Jones, an employee of Halliburton subsidiary KBR, goes to Iraq and encounters a slightly upsetting employment situation: she is drugged and gang-raped by her fellow employees, who then lock her in a shipping container and warn her that if she tries to go for medical treatment, she’d be fired. The US Embassy eventually had to free her from the shipping container. Jamie had evidently managed to contact her father, who, after having no luck pursuing her daughter’s protection or safety with KBR or Halliburton, called his US Representative, Ted Poe. Representative Poe similarly had no luck with calling the company, so Rep. Poe had to involve the US Embassy. Obviously, there are embassy witnesses to the allegations.

When Ms. Jones tried to sue in court…SURPRISE!!! Halliburton invoked its binding arbitration clause, and Ms. Jones cannot pursue her claims against her employer in a court of law.

All thanks to Dick Cheney.

So, if you ever ask me in the future why I oppose involuntary binding arbitration, or if I detect that you might be buying the corporate PR messages about how wonderful it is, I’ll simply respond: would you want your consumer dispute against a corporation decided by Dick Cheney?

I would certainly hope not.

Have a wonderful Christmas and you’ll hear from me in the New Year.

Bob Brennan

Hello, all. Good news from Orange County Superior Court, where the judge in my trial against Bentley just ruled that Bentley must completely repurchase my client’s defective 2001 Bentley Arnage. Given how hard Bentley fought this trial, this is quite a victory!

The defect was an airbag light that kept coming on, time and time again, seven times over about 15,000 miles. Bentley tried to dismiss the problem as a minor one, and also tried to blame it on some minor parking-lot damage that my client’s car had suffered. The judge saw through both smokescreens and ruled that the defect was a major defect and that Bentley had to buy the car back.

For those of you poor souls out there driving Bentleys: keep your documentation very straight if you’re having any problems with the vehicle. Bentley still has not learned the lesson that it must repurchase defective lemons, at least in California. Expect a fight. But if you have a good case, the fight is more than worth it.

Thanks for reading!

Bob Brennan

Just finished a three-week trial over a Bentley Arnage with eight airbag illuminations.  Bentley’s defense was positively ludicrous.  First, Bentley claimed that a small bumper-ding on the right front bumper caused all of the Bentley’s airbag system problems.  But then, the real “piece de resistance”–Bentley claimed that the airbag light diagnostic code only referred to a problem with the airbag light itself, not the function of the airbag system.

So, Bentley–one of the premiere high-end luxury car makers in the entire world–is telling us that their airbag light sometimes lights up just to let us know that there’s a problem with the airbag light?  From an engineering standpoint, doesn’t this seem just a bit redundant, if not completely ridiculous?  And yet, Bentley’s expert witness sat on the stand and insisted that that’s the way it is.

We then found some technical information from Bentley showing that the Bentley factory did not even understand the problem.  Needless to say, the expert had a rough morning on the witness stand.

 Seriously, if you want to buy one of these cars, it’s “buyer beware”.  Yes, as with all car manufacturers, there are good ones and there are bad ones, but we’re seeing a fair number of bad ones from the Bentley company.

Hope you’re having a great summer & safe driving!

Good news from the consumer protection front!  California’s Car Buyer’s Bill of Rights, signed into law effective the first of this year (2007) seems to be working!  It contains many rights for consumers, but some of the key ones include that dealers can no longer “certify” used cars with frame damage and must, to a greater extent, behave when trying to tack on all those expensive “extras” (gap insurance, window etchings, etc.) when selling you a car.

If you know of any departures from good dealer conduct, please let your legislators know.  They’re keeping tabs on this new law and we hopefully want to let them know that it’s working well.  If it’s not, then, of course, it’s time to hire our firm!

Thanks for reading. 

I guess Bentley Motors is not only snooty but arrogant as well.  My client, Matt, is a successful business owner from Orange County who bought a Bentley Arnage as his “dream car” in 2002.  The car came with the Bentley 3-year warranty.  Matt has had numerous airbag light illuminations with this vehicle, and the problems persist to this day.  Bentley’s representatives admitted to him that they did not know how to correct the problem.

Yesterday, after waiting for a trial courtroom for over two days, we had a settlement conference, where Bentley made its very first offer to settle the case: Bentley wanted my client to pay a substantial sum to Bentley to trade into a new vehicle!  Obviously, my client and I rejected this bogus offer, which completely ignores Bentley’s obligation for paying my client’s damages as well as my firm’s attorney’s fees if we win the trial. 

Bentley recently lost another case in “the O.C.”, where it got tagged for a double civil penalty for refusing to repair or replace a vehicle with a defective check engine light and a strong odor in the passenger compartment. 

I guess Bentley will simply have to continue to get tagged at trial before it learns its lesson about selling defective cars in California.  California laws force Bentley to repurchase defective cars, and if Bentley refuses, the law makes Bentley pay attorney’s fees and penalties to successful plaintiffs.  All the old-line British royal snooty arrogance in the world won’t change these simple facts, and Bentley will simply have to learn them with time.

My office has successfully handled several cases involving false claims of gas mileage for new “hybrid” vehicles.  In fact, gas mileage claims on these vehicles are grossly inflated and consumers should know this.

The good news is, I read in the L.A. Times yesterday that the EPA (the federal agency which administers the gas mileage estimates which appear on the window stickers of new cars) has revised standards for gas mileage testing, which, starting in 2008, should make gas mileage estimates on window stickers more accurate.  One can always hope…

However, that is not the purpose of this post.  I have engaged in debate with some environmental activists about whether my firm should be pursuing these types of claims because, according to the environmental activists, we should be encouraging, not discouraging, auto manufacturers to use “green” technology.  My response has been, traditionally, that I fully support any and all “green technology”, but I will continue to decry the use of fraud or misrepresentation when marketing any product or technology.

Upon some reflection on this debate, I have decided that I will no longer pursue these claims against auto manufacturers, for the very reason advanced by the environmental activists.  I do not condone the knowing and pattern misrepresentation of gas mileage estimates to sell cars, but I will not be a party to any effort which discourages auto manufacturers from expanding their use of “green” technology. 

I am also hopeful that the new 2008 EPA standards do something effective to remedy this situation, because it continues to be a fraud.  However, with the environmental state of the planet right now, I will not be using the litigation tools and capabilities of my office to punish any auto manufacturer for its use or expansion of “green” technology.

Thanks for taking the time to read this short message.