A virtual hearing on a Wood River car dealership’s motion for summary judgment is scheduled for February after the defendants argued that a customer refused several offers to service a vehicle she claims was sold with defects.
According to a Dec. 9 notice, the motion hearing is set for Feb. 18 at 1 p.m. via zoom with Madison County Circuit Judge Sarah Smith presiding.
The motion for summary judgment was filed on Sept. 23 by attorney Joshua Edelson of Craney Law Group on behalf of defendants DBJ Automotive II Inc., doing business as J.D. Byrider of Wood River, and DBJ Investments Inc., also known as CNAC of Wood River.
The defendants argue that plaintiff Brittany Nicole Hewitt purchased the used 2006 Chevrolet Equinox from the defendants for $12,254.80 on Aug. 30, 2017, with a one-year warranty.
During that time, Hewitt allegedly failed to show up for two scheduled service appointments on Dec. 13, 2017, and Feb. 19, 2018.
More than a year later, and outside of the applicable warranty period, Hewitt allegedly contacted the defendants about an orange residue under the hood and a grinding noise on the front driver’s side of the vehicle on Nov. 11, 2018. The defendants scheduled a service appointment for the following day for diagnosis and repair, but she failed to show. They scheduled another service appointment for Nov. 20, 2018, but Hewitt allegedly failed to show again. She then allegedly stopped making payments on the vehicle.
Between Nov. 20, 2018, and Nov. 28, 2018, the defendants allegedly left multiple voicemails and messages to Hewitt regarding the past-due payments and offering to help.
The motion for summary judgment states that on Dec. 9, 2018, the head gasket in the vehicle’s engine allegedly blew. Hewitt didn’t notify the defendants of the engine issue until Jan. 10, 2019.
The defendants claim that after contacting her on numerous occasions, they offered on Jan. 16, 2019, to have the vehicle picked up for her to bring it in for service. They hired a tow truck company to pick up the vehicle the following day, but the plaintiff allegedly could not find the key to the vehicle.
“Thus, the vehicle could neither be driven nor towed to defendants’ shop without the key,” the motion states.
Hewitt allegedly told the defendants to repossess the vehicle and that she no longer wanted it because “there’s too much wrong with it and I’m not paying all that money,” the motion states.
The vehicle was repossessed on Feb. 5, 2019, with a remaining unpaid balance of $8,776.29.
The defendants allege Hewitt told them she would not make anymore payments until the vehicle was fixed, but she would not pay for the repairs.
At the time of the purchase, the vehicle’s odometer allegedly calculated 87,213 miles. The motion states that after Hewitt allegedly stopped making payments, the odometer read 120,513 miles - an increase of 33,300 miles.
The vehicle was sold at a car auction on April 9, 2019.
According to Hewitt’s complaint, she accuses the defendants of unfair and deceptive business practices in violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act.
She alleges she purchased the vehicle from the defendants with a $1,300 down payment at the time of purchase and $5,400 in later payments. She claims she replaced the engine after the head gasket blew in December 2018 and discovered that a block sealant was used as a “temporary fix” to engine damages.
Hewitt claims the defendants used the block sealant to disguise the damages or knew that the sealant had been applied at the time of purchase but failed to inform the plaintiff of the issue.
She seeks repayment of the costs she made for the down payment and the additional payments she made on the vehicle. She also seeks $30,000 because the vehicle’s expenses prevented her from buying her parents’ home. Further, the plaintiff seeks $100,000 in punitive damages for the “outrageous, willful, wanton, intentional, and malicious” actions of the defendants.
Edelson wrote in the motion for summary judgment that Hewitt lacks sufficient evidence to prove deception or to establish proximate cause.
“Notably, there is no evidence whatsoever that defendants engaged in the conduct that plaintiff complains of within her complaint. In fact, plaintiff conceded during her deposition that she does not have any evidence that shows that defendant knowingly sold her a defective vehicle nor that the vehicle was defective upon purchase,” he wrote.
Edelson added that Hewitt admitted that she cannot support her allegation that a block sealant was used, and the defendants never promised to forgive the outstanding balance after the vehicle was repossessed.
“Rather, plaintiff on her own accord, stopped making payments even when she was told that doing so would negatively impact her credit score,” he wrote.
“The undisputed facts demonstrate that plaintiff’s claims, which contradict her own testimony, are entirely unfounded and baseless,” he continued.
As for Hewitt’s request for punitive damages, Edelson wrote that summary judgment is warranted because she failed to offer evidence that the defendants’ conduct was “willful or intentional and done with evil motive or reckless indifference to the rights of others.”
“In light of the foregoing, and given that Illinois law disfavors punitive damages, there are no grounds for permitting plaintiff’s punitive damages claims to stand as plaintiff has failed to show, pursuant to the act, that defendant’s conduct was willful or intentional and done with evil motive or reckless indifference to the rights of others or that there is any conduct must be deterred,” he wrote.
Madison County Circuit Court case number 19-L-805