Suing dealership after selling back NEW car?

[Lucky_Star]

I recently purchased a NEW vehicle that has significant damage to its entire exterior. So much so that it will need a complete repaint and new glass installed, per the dealership. I have contacted Lemon Lawyers, but they will not take the case under the Lemon Law since the damage falls under Environmental Fallout.

The manufacturer has denied the warranty claim.

The dealership has taken the responsibility of correcting the problem at no charge. However, they have already tried repairing the vehicle 4 times for the same paint damage, and it is still not fixed. The glass has yet to be replaced. I don't trust the dealer to do any more repairs given their inefficient track record. The vehicle has been at the dealership for a cumulative 38 days.

The dealership has now offered to repurchase the vehicle at the trade in value. This means I will be losing $4000 dollars.

If I sell back the vehicle to the dealership, can I proceed to Small Claims court to recoup the $4000 loss? What challenges or disadvantages do I face?

Can I name, the manufacturer, dealership and owner in the suit?

Thank you for your help. I look forward to your response.

 

[tpajet]

Question for clarification - what was damaged both to the paint and glass? I can understand something can go wrong with the paint somehow (chemically, etc) but what happened to the glass?

 

[Lucky_Star]

Question for clarification - what was damaged both to the paint and glass? I can understand something can go wrong with the paint somehow (chemically, etc) but what happened to the glass?

Yes, the damage is to both paint and glass. All of the glass is affected. As for what happened, no one seems to know. However, it is agreed upon by all who have seen the vehicle that whatever got to the paint, also got in the glass.

It's as though acid was sprayed all over the vehicle. Both the paint and glass are etched with moon like craters, pockmarked. Because of this, the glass is distorted. The dealership verified this. They also tried to repair the glass, but have now advised replacement.

 

[mightymoose]

This sounds like something that your insurance should have covered. You are probably lucky the dealer did anything at all.

 

[Lucky_Star]

This sounds like something that your insurance should have covered. You are probably lucky the dealer did anything at all.

If you can elaborate as to why you believe this is an insurance issue and not a consumer rights issue, that would be constructive.

But if I wasn't clear, the manufacturer and dealer have agreed that the contamination originated from the dealership, not me, the owner.

So my question remains.

If I accept the dealership's offer of repurchasing the vehicle at the reduced value, do I have legal recourse in Small Claims court for the money lost in the transaction, since I have given the dealership several attempts at repairing the nonconformity, and problem remains uncorrected?

The vehicle has less than 1000 miles.

Thanks!

 

[tpajet]

If this is damage caused by the dealership, then that would not fall under the lemon laws. The dealer's insurance needs to cover this. Basically they damaged your property. I wouldn't take the buy back offer unless they agree to buy it back at the full price. If they refuse, then take them to court.

 

[mightymoose]

If you can elaborate as to why you believe this is an insurance issue and not a consumer rights issue, that would be constructive.

But if I wasn't clear, the manufacturer and dealer have agreed that the contamination originated from the dealership, not me, the owner.

No need to get snippy!

If the manufacturer denied warranty coverage then it seems they hardly accepted responsibility for a defect. The dealer took it on for whatever reason- possibly just a good faith gesture. I wouldn't have expected the dealer to take responsibility unless there was more than one car with the same problem. An isolated case suggests that it may well have occurred somewhere else.

Your insurance should have you covered for the actual value of the vehicle. Trad-in values are significantly less.

If you accept the offer you might prevent yourself from making any further claim in court. Even if you do go to court, it will be your responsibility to prove that the dealer or manufacturer caused the damage.

If you have not spoken with your insurance company then you should at least give them a call and see what other options they might provide.

 

[Lucky_Star]

If this is damage caused by the dealership, then that would not fall under the lemon laws. The dealer's insurance needs to cover this. Basically they damaged your property. I wouldn't take the buy back offer unless they agree to buy it back at the full price. If they refuse, then take them to court.

Unfortunately, I was hoping to avoid Civil court, by selling back the vehicle and suing for the smaller remainder in Small Claims.

I have also inquired about the dealer's insurance, and they've flatly rejected this idea.

 

[Lucky_Star]

No need to get snippy!

If the manufacturer denied warranty coverage then it seems they hardly accepted responsibility for a defect. The dealer took it on for whatever reason- possibly just a good faith gesture. I wouldn't have expected the dealer to take responsibility unless there was more than one car with the same problem. An isolated case suggests that it may well have occurred somewhere else.

Your insurance should have you covered for the actual value of the vehicle. Trad-in values are significantly less.

If you accept the offer you might prevent yourself from making any further claim in court. Even if you do go to court, it will be your responsibility to prove that the dealer or manufacturer caused the damage.

If you have not spoken with your insurance company then you should at least give them a call and see what other options they might provide.

Sorry for the snip. This isn't a situation I'd wish on anyone. I'm feeling it.

Thank your for your thoughtful response. I also thought the dealer was working on a good faith gesture, at the same time trying to minimize the cost to themselves. This unfortunately is producing shoddy results.

Today, however, the dealer has confirmed one other vehicle had similar damage, but was not as extensive as mine. I have my doubts they will put this in writing to aid my cause.

If I go to my insurance company, I will need to pay a premium as well as have a whole other fight on my hands, and will still be saddled with a new vehicle that will further depreciate because of the needed repairs.

Proving that the dealership or manufacturer caused the damage, that is the issue. I believe I have a few options here, and will follow-up when it's all said and done.

Thanks for pointing out crux of the matter. I needed that.

 

[Lucky_Star]

This is a follow-up.

I went to court. I saw the judge. I won my case.

AND

The defendant paid the judgement.

So to answer my original question, now having gone through the process of taking my dispute to Small Claims court: Yes, you can sue a dealership after returning a damaged vehicle. Of course, having a proper judge who thoroughly read the attachment to my complaint in which I outlined why I was suing the dealership was invaluable. And the very notion that the dealership did accept responsibility through their many repair attempts and subsequent refund, was proof enough to the judge that the defendant took responsibility for the damage to my vehicle. And the final nail was the inability of the dealership to substantiate how they determined the amount that they refunded me.

I think what surprised me most, was that there was no mediation. Also, because the judge had read my extensive complaint and the dealership had accepted the vehicle back, there was no need for the judge to review my evidence: photos, timeline, receipts, repair orders, estimates, etc... About the only thing my well prepared evidence was good for was to intimidate the defendants, and get my thoughts straight.

In practice, being organized was good, but in hindsight it seems like a lot of unnecessary work for that particular situation. I had a lot of so-called evidence in triplicate!

If I were to have done anything differently in court, I would have "shut-up" more. The defendants did a good enough job in destroying anything of a defense they might have had. So me, interjecting un-useful bits of information only distracted the judge and should have been replaced with more tongue biting.

Of course, there were a few things I could have done better, like having a better idea of how to factor in and deduct for the "mileage used" ... That would have been very helpful. Just like the dealership could not show how they calculated the amount they refunded me, all I showed for calculating mileage used was according to existing lemon law formula, which did not apply to this case. So I believe that cut down my award, since the judge needed to do some research/calculations of their own. It would have been better to have been able to say "this is how much (rental car companies) charge for millage, and I used this many miles to bring the vehicle in for service," instead of allowing the judge to determine a "fair" (arbitrary) amount. None the less, I'm pleased with the outcome, especially as I expected the defendant to appeal.

 

[tpajet]

I'm glad to hear you won the case. Good lessons learned about the process, but don't beat yourself up too much. Small claims court is meant for the everyday, un-experienced (in the area of suing) person to handle their case in. Still good pointers for other to learn from.

 

[mightymoose]

I'm glad to hear it worked out.
I was concerned that if you accepted their offer and returned the car for trade-in that they might have gotten you to sign off on something that would have prevented you from seeking further damages in court. They left that door open for you, so good for you for following through... I think most people just give up, but you seem to have done your homework to be successful with it.