ILNews

COA rules on first impression lemon-law issue

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals tackled today an issue of first impression regarding the state's lemon law: Once a consumer has met the law's repair threshold, he can still file an action under the lemon law even if a subsequent repair fixes the problem.
 
In Metro Health Professionals, Inc. v. Chrysler, LLC, No. 06A04-0809-CV-547, Metro Health Professionals purchased a Jeep from a Chrysler dealer in October 2006. MHP took the vehicle in for service at a repair facility authorized by Chrysler to address issues with all the warning lights in the dash coming on, gauges that quit working, headlights shutting on and off spontaneously, and the transmission shifting into low gear spontaneously. Each time it was brought in, Chrysler claimed there wasn't a problem. Finally, after the fifth time MHP brought the car in for service, the repair facility replaced the front control module and the problems haven't occurred since.
 
In October 2007, MHP filed its claim under Indiana Code Sections 24-5-13-1 to -24, the Motor Vehicle Protection Act. The trial court denied MHP's motion for summary judgment. It granted Chrysler's motion for summary judgment finding the facts show the "nonconformity," or vehicle defects, hadn't occurred since the front control module was repaired and MHP was without remedy under the act.

Indiana's MVPA, or lemon law, says if after at least four attempts by the manufacture to repair the nonconformity, and the defects still exist, a consumer can bring a suit as long as the action has been brought within two years of the date the buyer first reports the defect.

At issue is whether MHP could file a claim because the nonconformity was repaired after the fifth attempt. MHP argued that because the defects weren't fixed after the fourth attempt, it could file the claim under the lemon law.

The Court of Appeals found DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Spitzer, 860 N.E.2d 705 (N.Y. 2006), to be persuasive and applied its ruling in the instant case.

"We hold that the plain language of Ind. Code Section 24-5-13-15(a)(1) obligates a consumer to demonstrate that the vehicle was subject to repair at least four times and that the same defective condition remained unresolved after the fourth attempt," wrote Judge Elaine Brown. "Therefore, once a consumer has met the four-repair threshold and the defect remains unresolved, the requirements of Ind. Code Section 24-5-13-15(a)(1) have been met."

The designated evidence in the instant case shows MHP took the Jeep for repairs on five occasions and was returned twice to MHP without making any repairs and twice after running a scan or diagnostic test. The Court of Appeals didn't agree with Chrysler's argument the Jeep wasn't "subject to repair" four times because it didn't make repairs the first four times it was brought in for service.

"Chrysler may not avoid liability under the Lemon Law by simply doing nothing when faced with a customer's complaints," wrote the judge.

Because it couldn't fix the problems after four times, Chrysler was obligated to refund MHP's money or provide a replacement car of comparable value. The trial court erred in granting summary judgment to Chrysler.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT