$______ RECOVERY - CONSUMER FRAUD - AUTOMOBILE FINANCING COMPANY FAULTED IN HANDLING OF GAP CONTRACTS - UNPAID PREMIUM REFUNDS OWED TO CONSUMERS.

Pages5-5
At the conclusion of the trial, the jury deliberated and
returned its verdict in favor of the plaintiff and against
the defendants. The jury assessed liability at 8% to the
defendant and 92% to the general surgeon with
whom the plaintiff had already settled for an undis-
closed sum. The jury assessed non-economic dam-
ages at $400,000 of which $32,000 was attributed to
the defendant vascular surgeon.
REFERENCE
Sherri Giambra, Administrator for the Estate of Timothy
A. Kringstad vs. David Esposito and Diagnostic Imag-
ing of Milford PC d/b/a Milford Vascular Institute. Case
no. CV14-6047162; Judge Michael Kamp, 12-11-20.
Attorneys for plaintiff: Matthew S. Blumenthal and
Sean K. McElligott of Koskoff, Koskoff & Bieder, P.C.
in Bridgeport, CT. Attorneys for defendant: Andrew
S. Wilstein and Edward W. Mayer of Danaher
Lagnese, P.C. in Hartford, CT.
COMMENTARY
The plaintiff filed a motion to set aside the verdict and/or for
additur alleging that the court erroneously permitted a record from
the decedent’s primary care physician into evidence, the apportion-
ment of liability was against the weight of the evidence and for an
erroneous jury instruction regarding failure to charge the jury that
the defendant using his “best efforts” was irrelevant to the standard
of care.
The main argument on the motion surrounded the admission by the
court of the primary care physician report which was damaging to
the plaintiff in that it related that the decedent drank alcoholic bev-
erages daily and had an abnormal liver function study which reso-
nated poorly with the jury on the issue of the plaintiff’s damages
and impaired life expectancy as a result of the alleged report
results.
The plaintiff also alleged that the jury’s verdict as to the settling
surgeon was against the weight of the evidence and prejudiced the
jury’s verdict. The parties had presented a joint stipulation as to the
negligence of the settling doctor and the court determined in ruling
on the motion that the plaintiff’s motion was denied as it failed to
be supported by the evidence. The court likewise denied the plain-
tiff’s motion for additur finding that the jury’s determination of
damages was supported by the evidence.
$1,800,000 RECOVERY – CONSUMER FRAUD – AUTOMOBILE FINANCING COMPANY
FAULTED IN HANDLING OF GAP CONTRACTS – UNPAID PREMIUM REFUNDS OWED
TO CONSUMERS.
Suffolk County, MA
In this matter, the office of the Massachusetts
Attorney General accused an automobile
financing company of violating Massachusetts
state consumer protection laws. The accusations
were resolved with an assurance of
discontinuance, including a monetary settlement.
The respondant Americredit Financial Services, Inc. (d/
b/a GM Financial) is a provider of automobile finance
solutions, and is located in Fort Worth Texas. The
respondant’s business practices include the require-
ments to provide pre-sale or post-sale repossession
related notices. They are also required to refund inter-
est to consumers on unearned premiums on guaran-
teed asset protection (GAP) contracts. GAP is sold by
car dealers as an add-on product and is frequently fi-
nanced as part of an auto loan. It functions to limit
the shortfall between the payment on an auto insur-
ance claim and the amount a borrower owes on a
car loan in the event a financed vehicle is rendered a
total loss.
The Massachusetts State Attorney General accused
the respondant of provided defective pre-sale or
post-sale repossession related notices between July
17, 2013 and July 18, 2014 to various consumers,
and failing to provide required interest refunds on GAP
contracts.
The matter was resolved with an assurance of discon-
tinuance filed in Suffolk Superior Court. The resolution
included $1.8 million in monetary compensation for
consumers, as well as changes to respondant’s busi-
ness practices and record-keeping. Over 2,000 Mas-
sachusetts residents may be eligible for restitution
under the settlement. The settlement includes no
admission of liability.
REFERENCE
Office of Attorney General Maura Healey vs.
Americredit Financial Services, Inc., d/b/a GM Finan-
cial. 02-23-22.
Attorney for plaintiff: Michael Sugar of Office of the
Attorney General in Boston, MA.
5
New England Jury Verdict Review & Analysis
Subscribe Now

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT