BREACH OF WARRANTY. $______ VERDICT

• Pages: 10-10

Verdicts by Category

BREACH OF WARRANTY

$24,300 VERDICT

Breach of warranty – Plaintiff maintains purchased

vehicle subsequently experienced numerous

issues that caused it to require frequent repair

and loss of use by plaintiff as well as

diminishment of value of vehicle – Defendant

failed to fix defects per terms of warranty.

Palm Beach County, FL

In this breach of warranty case, the plaintiff

asserted that the defendant auto manufacturer

failed to repair or replace an unsafe, defective

vehicle that the plaintiff purchased from the

defendant. The defendant denied any breach of

warranty and argued that any damages suffered

by the plaintiff were the result of the plaintiff’s

own acts or omissions with respect to failing to

bring the vehicle to the dealership or maintain the

vehicle outside of the warranty period.

On February 5, 2018, the plaintiff purchased from the

seller a 2017 BMW M4 model vehicle. The plaintiff paid

$60,184 for the vehicle. The plaintiff claimed that as a

result of the ineffective repair attempts made by the

manufacturer through its authorized dealership network,

the vehicle cannot be utilized for personal, family or

household use as intended by the plaintiff at the time of

acquisition. The plaintiff maintained that the defendant

auto manufacturer engaged in an aggressive advertis-

ingandmarketingcampaigninordertoinducethe

plaintiff and other consumers to purchase its vehicles

from a dealership authorized to sell its vehicles and issue

its written warranties to consumers. The plaintiff was is-

sued a written warranty for the vehicle which included 4

years or 50,000 mile “bumper-to-bumper” coverage.

The plaintiff experienced various defects that substan-

tially impaired the use, value and safety of the vehicle.

The plaintiff claimed that the vehicle had been subject

to repair on at least three occasions for the same de-

fect and that the defect remained uncorrected. The

plaintiff claimed that the vehicle had defective body

trim as evidenced by a water leakage from the right

rear window; a discoloring of the right side of the exterior

window trim; a rattle in the convertible top over rough

road surfaces; deterioration of the emergency brake

handle; a misaligned headliner; and defective brakes

as evidenced by an inoperable emergency brake. The

plaintiff maintained that the defendant was negligent in

failing to comply with the terms of its warranty and ade-

quately repair the vehicle. The plaintiff asserted that he

lost confidence in the vehicle’s safety and reliability and

that the defects substantially impaired the value of the

vehicle.

The defendant maintained that the plaintiff did not take

the vehicle to the dealership with any leak complaints

since August 2019 or any complaints since September

2020 and that all confirmed complaints had been re-

paired by that time. The defendant pointed to the expi-

ration of the original warranty on October 28, 2020 and

that the CPO warranty did not provide coverage for wa-

ter leaks. The defendant contended that the plaintiff was

an attorney who was well aware of the warranty’s terms

and never returned to the dealership within the original

warranty period even though he had approximately 1.5

years of coverage left after the August 2019 complaints

of leakage. The defendant argued that the plaintiff

could not show that the defendant failed or refused to

repair or replace any covered item during the warranty

period.

The jury found in favor of the plaintiff and awarded dam-

ages in the amount of $24,300 broken down as follows:

$8,300 in incidental damages; $16,000 in diminished

value.

REFERENCE

Chomsky vs. BMW of North America, LLC. Case no.

2019-CA-011116; Judge Samantha Schosberg Feuer,

11-18-21.

Attorneys for plaintiff: Kevin Carey and Brent S.

Wikgren of Krohn & Moss, Ltd. in Chicago, IL.

Attorney for defendant: Suzanne M. Valles of

Biedermann Hoenig Semprevivo, P.A. in Miami, FL.

Volume 32, Issue 6, June 2022 Subscribe Now

10