Indiana woman sues Toyota due to recall

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A Hamilton County woman has filed a class action suit against Toyota, alleging fraud and breach of warranties as a result of the recent recall of Toyota vehicles.

Judith M. Enderle filed the suit Wednesday in federal court claiming Toyota knew their cars had defects in the accelerator systems when people purchased them, failed to recall the defective cars at the earliest possible date, and blamed the defect on floor mats.

She seeks class action certification, an award of punitive or exemplary damages against Toyota, restitution and disgorgement of profits, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. She also wants a jury trial.

Enderle purchased a 2006 Toyota Avalon from an Indianapolis Toyota dealer in 2006; that car is subject to the January 2010 recall. She seeks to bring this case as a class action for every person or entity in Indiana who owns a Toyota car that is subject to the recall for defects in the accelerator system. The suit only seeks recovery for economic losses of the class and not recovery for personal injury.

Enderle seeks damages from the company resulting from the "serious" safety defect that renders the vehicles unfit for their intended and expected purpose, according to the suit. She claims Toyota breached implied and express warranties, received unjust enrichment, and committed constructive fraud and negligence, and is liable for its design, manufacturing, and sales of the cars. Nearly 5.3 million cars have been recalled nationwide because of the accelerator defect.

The suit, Judith M. Enderle, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Toyota Motor North America Inc., et al., No. 1:10-CV-142, was filed in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division. She's represented by Cohen & Malad in Indianapolis.

Enderle's suit joins the list of lawsuits around the country filed by Toyota owners as a result of the recall. Irwin Levin, one of Enderle's attorneys, said he believes hers is the first one filed in Indiana. Some of those suits involve incidents of stuck gas pedals and injuries. Enderle's gas pedal has not become stuck, Levin said.


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?