LAW OFFICES OF RENÉ KORPER
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA LEMON LAW ATTORNEYS

Some of the significant trial successes of the Law Office of René Korper.

When reviewing these cases, please keep in mind that the vast majority of the cases that the firm handles – over 90% – settle without the need for a trial.  When the warrantor of a defective product chooses to go to trial against us, however, here are some of the results:

• Cars
• Trucks & Vans
• Motor Homes
• Boats

CARS

Cole v. Mercedes-Benz:  Mr. Cole purchased a new Mercedes E-Class, which began to experience very intermittent loss of braking ability for 2-3 seconds.  Because of the intermittency of the brake defect, no mechanics ever verified it.  Mercedes claimed that, because the problem was never verified, it did not exist.

RESULT:            Purchase price refunded.

Chen v. Mercedes-Benz:  This case involved an intermittent transmission defect in an E-Class Mercedes.  Mercedes claimed that it was unable to verify the problem.  Ms. Chen’s expert witness, however, was able to verify it.

RESULT:            Purchase price refunded.

Jiagbogu v. Mercedes-Benz:  Mr. Jiagbogu purchased a 12-cylinder Mercedes sedan, which developed various engine and transmission defects over time.  At trial, Mercedes argued that, because the vehicle had almost 100,000 miles on its odometer, Mr. Jiagbogu had obtained full use of the vehicle and that, therefore, the defects had not impaired the value of the vehicle to him.  Mercedes also claimed that all the defects of which Mr. Jiagbogu complained had been repaired.

RESULT:            Purchase price refunded.  Mercedes appealed, but lost again.

Hayes v. General Motors:  Mr. Hayes purchased a brand new Chevrolet Camaro Z28.  Shortly after purchase he noticed that there were large areas of rust and corrosion underneath the vehicle.  General Motors claimed that rust on the undercarriage of a new vehicle was normal.  General Motors also claimed that, because the rust could not be seen unless the vehicle was hoisted off of the ground, the defect was minor and did not warrant a repurchase.

RESULT:            Purchase price refunded, maximum civil penalty imposed.

Carranza v. Honda:  The Carranzas purchased a new Honda vehicle, which manifested engine-control problems shortly after purchase.  The Carranzas had added various aftermarket electrical devices to their vehicle after purchase, but also after the electrical problems had already arisen.  Honda claimed that the engine problems were due to the installation of the aftermarket devices and that, consequently, Honda was not responsible for the Carranzas’ problems.

RESULT:            Purchase price refunded.

Rosenthal v. Mercedes-Benz:  Dr. Rosenthal purchased a Mercedes-Benz SL 55 AMG convertible for over $160,000.00.  Right after purchase, Dr. Rosenthal noticed a chirping “like the sound of crickets” emanating from behind the driver’s seat of the vehicle.  The noise was not audible at freeway speeds.  Mercedes was aware that all SL 55s had this problem:  it had determined that the noise was coming from a special pump in the fuel tank, and was working on a fix.  After several months of Mercedes telling Dr. Rosenthal that the fix was not available, Dr. Rosenthal sought legal help.  At trial, Mercedes claimed that the noise was minor and did not warrant a repurchase of the vehicle.  The original jury was unable to reach a verdict.  While awaiting retrial, Mercedes made an offer to settle for less than a full repurchase.  Dr. Rosenthal elected to retry the case.

RESULT:            Purchase price refunded, civil penalty imposed.

Lo Sauro v. Reseda Dodge:  Mr. Lo Sauro purchased a used Chrysler Camaro from Reseda Dodge.  He experienced problems with it, so he decided to trade it in for something else after owning it less than a year.  When he tried, however, he discovered that the vehicle had substantial frame damage, which someone had tried unsuccessfully to repair.  Reseda Dodge argued that it did know about the frame damage; that the damage was purely cosmetic; and that Mr. Lo Sauro might have been in an accident and caused the damage himself.  The jury disagreed, finding Reseda Dodge liable under both the Song-Beverly Act and the Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA).

RESULT:       Purchase price of $22,299.60 refunded, less $3,000.00 because Mr. Lo Sauro was allowed to keep vehicle.

TRUCKS AND VANS

Lombardi v. Chrysler:  Mr. Lombardi had a Dodge van with habitual driver’s-side-window problems.  The windows would stick or come off of the track.  Repeated attempts by Chrysler to repair this situation were ineffective.  At the time of trial, the vehicle had over 100,000 miles on the odometer.

RESULT:            Purchase price refunded, civil penalty imposed.

Tucker v. General Motors:  Mr. Tucker purchased a Chevrolet 1500 pickup truck.  It was his first new vehicle.  Unfortunately, the vehicle developed transmission complaints after sale, and General Motors did not repair them after several opportunities.  General Motors claimed that the defects were a result of abuse by Mr. Tucker.  The jury disagreed.

RESULT:            Purchase price refunded.

Shirley v. Mercedes-Benz:  Mr. Shirley purchased a Mercedes G500 sport utility vehicle, which developed a series of pervasive electrical problems.  Mercedes claimed that each problem was different, and that each time an electrical problem developed the dealership had been able to repair that problem.  Consequently, Mercedes argued that Mr. Shirley was not entitled to a repurchase, because no individual electrical problem was subject to repair more than twice.

RESULT:            Purchase price refunded.

Seymour v. Ford:  Ms. Seymour was sold a Ford Explorer that was labeled a four-wheel drive vehicle.  The vehicle came complete with a four-wheel drive emblem.  It turned out that the vehicle was actually a standard drive vehicle.

RESULT:       Award of the difference between the value of the vehicle as represented versus as purchased.

MOTOR HOMES

Marciel v. Beaver:  Mr. and Mrs. Marciel purchased a Beaver motor home for more than $300,000.00.  It manifested numerous problems, including an electrical defect that would drain the chassis batteries so the motor home wouldn’t even start.  They brought it in at least 15 times for lengthy repairs, and the motor home was in the shop for over 400 days in less than two years.  Despite this, the defendants argued that they were entitled to more repair attempts.  They also argued that their warranty had expired while the motor home was in for repairs, and that Mr. and Mrs. Marciel had caused their own problems by failing to maintain the motor home properly.

RESULT:            Purchase price refunded.

Eslamieh v. Coachmen:  Mr. Eslamieh purchased a Coachmen motor home that developed two problems.  First, there was a whistling noise from the front end of the vehicle; second, there were continuous problems with the main slide-out.  At one point the slide-out actually came out by itself while the coach was making a turn in traffic.  Coachmen’s defense was its claim that it could still repair all of the defects in the motor home.

RESULT:            Purchase price refunded, $175,000.00 civil penalty imposed.

Birozy v. Fleetwood:  Mr. and Mrs. Birozy purchased a Fleetwood fifth-wheel travel trailer.  Whenever they went camping at a trailer park and plugged into the park’s electrical box, if the water heater, air conditioner, and refrigerator were all on at the same time, the main circuit breaker would trip.  Fleetwood claimed that this condition was normal, and that all three components could not be used on electrical power at the same time.  Fleetwood therefore maintained that there was no defect at all.

RESULT:            Purchase price refunded.

BOATS

Hovsepian v. Eliminator Boats:  Mr. Hovsepian purchased a new custom Stoker boat built by Eliminator and John’s Custom Marine.  Shortly after purchase, Mr. Hovsepian noticed that the vessel was leaking water and that it would “hobby­horse” when pulling a skier.  Mr. Hovsepian claimed that the design of the boat was defective.  Defendants claimed that they manufactured the boat in accordance with Mr. Hovsepian’s specifications, and that, consequently, they were not at fault.  The jury disagreed.

RESULT:            Purchase price refunded, civil penalty imposed.

Saylan v. Mercury Marine:  Mr. and Mrs. Saylan purchased a vessel with two outboard Mercury Optimax engines.  The vehicle was purchased for marine research purposes.  The engines developed serious injector problems that caused the vessel, over time, to become totally unusable.  Mercury claimed that it had fixed all of the defects.

RESULT:            Purchase price of the engines refunded.

A Final Thought

Warrantors often try to negotiate fast but inadequate settlements of lemon law claims, and threaten to go to trial if their offers are not accepted.  When The Law Office of René Korper represents the consumers, however, warrantors know that such tactics do not work.  We will not buckle under if a warrantor wrongfully refuses to pay the amount to which the consumer is legally entitled, but will take the case to trial if necessary.  Warrantors also know our record of trial successes.   This discourages warrantors from trying to bluff us, and actually increases the number of cases that are ultimately settled without trial.

Each case is different.  To find out whether you qualify for relief under the lemon law,
Call Us For A Free Professional Evaluation