Quantcast

MADISON - ST. CLAIR RECORD

Sunday, April 28, 2024

Smith denies summary judgment in suit alleging vehicle defects were concealed by dealership

Lawsuits
Joshuaedelsonpipeline

Edelson

Madison County Circuit Judge Sarah Smith denied a Wood River car dealership’s motion for summary judgment in a suit alleging the defendant concealed vehicle defects from consumers. 

Smith denied the motion filed by defendants DBJ Automotive II Inc., doing business as JD Byride of Wood River, and DBJ Investments Inc., also known as CNAC of Wood River. She concluded there are “material issues of fact in dispute with respect to whether the defendants violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, whether they were acting in concert, and whether their conduct warranted an award of punitive damages.”

“The provision in the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act imposing additional requirements to recover punitive damages against car dealers has been held unconstitutional,” she added. 

The defendants’ motion for summary judgment was filed Sept. 23 through attorney Joshua Edelson of Craney Law Group. 

The defendants argued 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 claimed they scheduled two separate service appointments for diagnosis and repair, but she failed to show. The defendants alleged Hewitt then stopped making payments on the vehicle. 

Between Nov. 20, 2018, and Nov. 28, 2018, the defendants claimed they attempted to contact Hewitt regarding the past-due payments. 

Then on Jan. 10, 2019, Hewitt allegedly notified the defendants that the head gasket in the vehicle’s engine blew one month prior. 

The defendants claimed they offered 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. 

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 stated. 

The vehicle was repossessed on Feb. 5, 2019, with a remaining unpaid balance of $8,776.29.

At the time of the purchase, the vehicle’s odometer allegedly calculated 87,213 miles. The motion stated 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 also wrote that summary judgment is warranted in regards to Hewitt’s request for punitive damages 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 stated.

“It is for the jury to decide whether a defendant’s conduct was sufficiently willful or wanton to award punitive damages,” it continued.  

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. 

“What is clear from 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.

Attorney David Duree of O’Fallon filed a motion for trial setting on behalf of Hewitt. He wrote that discovery has been completed, and the case is ready to be set for trial. 

Smith set a case management conference for Nov. 18 at 9 a.m.

Madison County Circuit Court case number 19-L-805

More News