A woman who claims a Wood River dealership concealed vehicle defects argues that punitive damages are appropriate and for a jury to decide.
On Feb. 18, Madison County Circuit Judge Sarah Smith granted plaintiff Brittany Nicole Hewitt’s request to file a sur-reply to the motion for summary judgment filed by defendants DBJ Automotive II, doing business as J.D. Byrider of Wood River, and DBJ Investments Inc., also known as CNAC of Wood River.
The 159-page document, filed through attorney David Duree of O’Fallon, included the discovery depositions of Joseph Dugan and Thomas Thomas III.
Dugan, who said he attempted to buy a house in Granite City with the plaintiff, testified about the circumstances surrounding the purchase of the vehicle at issue, the engine issues the vehicle had, and the consequences of Hewitt’s damaged credit score.
Thomas, a certified mechanic, is Dugan’s father and taught him his way around an engine.
Dugan testified that he knows what he’s doing “when it comes to small things with a car.”
“I don’t usually rip out a whole engine and stuff like that, but I know my way around a car. I know what it is. And I can do anything to fix it if I wanted to. That’s just not what I want to do,” he said.
Dugan testified that liquid began “bubbling” out of the reservoir shortly after the vehicle was purchased. He also said the defendants refused to provide copies of the sales contract or Carfax, showing if engine defects had been concealed. The vehicle has since been sold in an auction, leaving the plaintiffs unable to obtain an inspection.
However, he said he never performed any maintenance on the Equinox at issue due to warranties.
The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on Sept. 23 through attorney Joshua Edelson of Craney Law Group.
The defendants argue that 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 claim they scheduled a service appointment for the following day for diagnosis and repair, but she failed to show. They claim they scheduled another service appointment for Nov. 20, 2018, but Hewitt allegedly failed to show again. The defendants allege Hewitt then stopped making payments on the vehicle.
Between Nov. 20, 2018, and Nov. 28, 2018, the defendants claim they attempted to contact Hewitt regarding the past-due payments.
The motion for summary judgment states that on Dec. 9, 2018, the head gasket in the vehicle’s engine allegedly blew. Hewitt notified the defendants of the engine issue until Jan. 10, 2019. they claim.
The defendants claim 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 and 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.
Edelson wrote 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.
Hewitt filed a response to the motion for summary judgment on Oct. 30.
“Disputed issues of fact exist as to whether the defendants sold and financed the sale of a 2006 Chevrolet Equinox to the plaintiff while failing to disclose that block sealant had been used to disguise the fact that the engine required replacement,” the response states.
“It is for the jury to decide whether a defendant’s conduct was sufficiently willful or wanton to award punitive damages,” it continues.
The defendants filed a reply in support of their motion for summary judgment on Feb. 8 arguing that whether punitive damages may be imposed should be determined by the court, not a jury.
They also argue that Hewitt failed to prove that the substance coming from the engine was block sealant, which Hewitt’s expert suspected.
The defendants add that Dugan and Thomas “have each admitted that they do not have any personal, direct, or indirect knowledge that defendants intentionally injected block sealant into the engine of the subject vehicle.”
“What is clear form the record is that this case is one of simple negligence, if any, for which the outcome could have been avoided if plaintiff had simply brought the vehicle, as requested, to the defendants to be resolved,” the reply states. “To allow plaintiff to seek punitive damages in this case would frustrate the intent of punitive damages, which is to punish and deter certain conduct.”
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.
Madison County Circuit Court case number 19-L-805