goofy78270
New Member
- Jurisdiction
- Colorado
I recently had small claims hearing in which I showed that my vehicle was warrantied for an issue before and immediately after the repair shop worked on it. I also showed that I reported the issue to the shop, 7 days after I recieved my vehicle back along with a myriad of other issues, and that they said they could not have caused the issue, but it could be due to the battery being disconnected for an extended period or coincidental mechanical issue. They lost parts, did not install a part as noted in the original repair order, damaged an unrelated part, left remnants of the repair in the vehicle (white dust from sanding), and paint issues. The shop addressed the other issues, but never addressed this one. After 6 months of back and forth, no diagnostic of the issue itself and other repairs being addressed, I had my own diagnostic completed, which uncovered an additional related issue. I asked that they submit the original issue to the insurance company that was covering the repair. They reported the originally issue falsely to the insurance, as they reported the newly found issue as what i was looking to have covered, to which the insurance denied. I clarified the issue, yet the denial stood dye to the additional issues, but with no explanation other than they researched the issue and the denial stood. I proceeded to file in small claims, for this issue while continuing to have the shop address other issues, and had 2 other diagnostics completed to show the issue is still present. In court, I explained the issue as well as the issue being covered under the initial vehicle warranty had I addressed it then rather than being told it would go away. I also detailed all the other issues that I had to take my vehicle back to the shop for. The judge listened to my side only, and ruled for the defendant due to no expert testimony present.
I thought the rules of evidence were not strictly adhered to in small claims. If an expert testimony is needed, how would anyone ever win a case without an expert (likely the cost of what you would be able to win in court) being required. Why would an existing warranty that would have covered the issue, images showing the issue, dealership diagnostics, and continued communication not be sufficient for the claim?
I thought the rules of evidence were not strictly adhered to in small claims. If an expert testimony is needed, how would anyone ever win a case without an expert (likely the cost of what you would be able to win in court) being required. Why would an existing warranty that would have covered the issue, images showing the issue, dealership diagnostics, and continued communication not be sufficient for the claim?