Case Results

CASE RESULTS - CONSUMER CASES

• A twenty-four year old restaurant service worker purchased a new motor vehicle for $24,000 with a $6,000 down payment. The car dealership had the consumer fill out a credit application and represented to the consumer that he was fully approved for financing. The dealership then took his $6,000 down payment and released the car to him. Several weeks later, the consumer received a phone call from the car dealership’s manager advising him that he had not qualified for financing and that he would have to find a cosigner and put an additional $2,000 down on the purchase of the vehicle. When the consumer advised the car dealer that he was unable to meet these additional financial terms, the car dealer requested that the consumer return the vehicle. Prior to bringing the vehicle back, the consumer requested that the car dealer refund his down payment of $6,000. However, when the consumer returned the vehicle, the dealership barricaded the consumer in by blocking his car and advised the consumer to get off their lot. When the consumer inquired as to whether or not the dealership intended on refunding his money, the dealership manager advised the consumer that he would not be getting any of his money back. Loren & Mercer filed suit, and the consumer ultimately recovered the gross amount of $150,000.
   

• A consumer went to a large local car dealership and requested a low mileage certified pre-owned car which had never been involved in a previous car accident. The car dealership recommended a particular vehicle to the consumer which the consumer agreed to purchase. As part of the transaction, the consumer was provided with documents from the vehicle manufacturer stating that the subject vehicle was a pre-owned certified car. Several years later, the vehicle had mechanical difficulties and the consumer attempted to fix the car under warranty. At that time, another factory authorized dealership advised the consumer that the warranty did not exist and that the vehicle that he purchased was actually not a pre-owned certified used car and had been involved in a prior accident. Once a lawsuit was filed, it was discovered that the car dealership had created phony documents to make the consumer believe that the vehicle was a pre-owned certified car when it was not. Loren & Mercer also discovered that the service manager who allegedly signed the documents stating that the vehicle was a pre-owned certified car was employed by the car dealership at a time when the pre-owned certified program did not even exist. The Court allowed the Plaintiff to assert a claim for punitive damages and the consumer ultimately recovered the gross amount of $120,000.
   

• A church pastor visited a major car dealership to purchase a quality used vehicle. Despite claims by the dealership that they had fully inspected the vehicle prior to selling it to the consumer, he would later learn that the vehicle was never inspected as claimed by the dealership and that the vehicle had been involved in a serious car accident. The Court permitted the consumer to assert a claim for punitive damages and the consumer recovered the gross amount of $120,000.
   

• A husband and wife went to a large local car dealership to purchase a reliable quality used vehicle. The dealership represented to the consumer that the vehicle had been professionally inspected and provided the consumer with a document stating that the vehicle had been fully inspected in all respects. Approximately six months later, the consumer noticed that the vehicle tires were wearing unevenly. Over the next two years the consumer replaced tires on the vehicle on at least four separate occasions. When the consumer retained our law firm, a professional inspection was done by our expert. The inspection revealed that the vehicle had been in a severe car accident which was concealed from the consumers by the car dealership. Loren & Mercer filed suit and the dealership denied knowing that the vehicle had been involved in a prior accident and denied ever inspecting the motor vehicle. However, Loren & Mercer located the original document that was given to the consumer by the dealership and were able to disprove the dealership’s claim that it had never represented that the vehicle was fully inspected. Based on the above, the Court granted the consumer’s permission to assert a claim for punitive damages and the consumer recovered the gross amount of $100,000.

• A consumer leased a vehicle from a large local car dealership. After receiving documentation from a leasing company, the consumer discovered that the lease terms were different from what he had agreed to. The consumer then obtained documents from the leasing company showing that the car dealership substituted a new lease agreement containing a forged signature. The consumer noted that the lease terms had changed and that the lease period was increased by a period of six months. A lawsuit was filed and the car dealership claimed that a rogue manager had engaged in this misconduct and was fired for his actions. However, when we asked the dealership why it made no effort to find out whether the consumers had been taken advantage by this rogue manager, the dealership simply had no explanation for its lack of action. The consumer ultimately recovered the gross amount of $75,000.
   

• A consumer purchased a used vehicle from a large local car dealership. Prior to purchasing the vehicle, the consumer advised the car dealership that she had very little money to put down and ultimately only agreed to put $300 in cash down on the purchase of the vehicle. The car dealership realized that this consumer would not be able to qualify for financing otherwise, and deliberately manipulated the financial documents to reflect a down payment of $2,000. Approximately one week later, the consumer received a phone call from the finance company verifying the various financial terms of the transaction and the consumer truthfully represented that she had made a $300 down payment. As a result, the financing company advising her that she was not qualified and withdrew her financing. The consumer contacted the dealership and they ridiculed her and advised that she should have lied to the financing company. Thereafter, without warning to the consumer, the dealership repossessed the vehicle from her driveway with all her work related property contained inside. Thus, the consumer was not able to utilize her equipment in her job as a cleaning service. Loren & Mercer filed suit and obtained a gross recovery of $65,000 to the consumer.
   

• A consumer visited a local car dealership and purchased a vehicle from the showroom floor which had approximately 1,900 miles on it. The car dealership sold the vehicle to the consumer, but failed to disclose that the vehicle had been involved in a prior accident and had been almost entirely repainted. The consumer recovered the gross amount of $50,000.