Attorney Blog

Test of Blog

jgayle@theconsumerlawgroup.com (Blog Author)47 — Tue, 15 Nov 2005 08:00:00 EST

Test of the Message

'No evidence of failure' after US recall fixes: Toyota

Jgayle@theconsumerlawgroup.com (News Author)13300 — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 08:00:00 EST

Fri Mar 5, 2:09 am ET

TOKYO (AFP) – Embattled Toyota said Friday it had found no evidence of failure in vehicles it had fixed for accelerator problems after some 60 post-recall complaints were sent to US authorities.

US regulators said Wednesday they were looking into complaints from Toyota drivers who say they experienced sudden spikes in speed in vehicles that had been repaired under the auto giant's recall.

However, Toyota said it took the reports "extremely seriously" but had found no evidence that the problem was persisting.

The company said it "moved quickly to evaluate the vehicles and interview the owners", stressing that the reports "involve a tiny fraction of the more than one million vehicles dealers have repaired to date".

With US authorities "now reviewing the results of our evaluations, it is inappropriate for Toyota to provide specific information about the company?s conclusions," said a statement by Toyota Motor Sales USA.

"However, the evaluations have found no evidence of a failure of the vehicle's electronic throttle control system, the recent recall remedies or the brake override feature," said the statement released from California.

Toyota said it would continue verifying all such cases after the US National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said it received dozens of complaints from Toyota drivers even after their cars were repaired.

The Japanese auto giant has recalled more than eight million cars and trucks worldwide, including six million in the United States, to address potentially deadly defects blamed for incidents of sudden, unintended acceleration.

U.S. satisfied with Toyota recall remedy: By John Crawley John Crawley

Jgayle@theconsumerlawgroup.com (News Author)12802 — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 08:00:00 EST

Safety regulators are satisfied with a Toyota Motor Corp. plan for fixing a sudden acceleration problem that is part of a massive recall and unprecedented sales and production halt, a government official said on Saturday. (Read More)

GM to make its own electric motors in 2013: By DEE-ANN DURBIN, AP

Jgayle@theconsumerlawgroup.com (News Author)12393 — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 08:00:00 EST

The automaker said Tuesday that starting in 2013, it plans to build its own electric motors for hybrid and electric vehicles. GM has been getting electric motors for those vehicles from suppliers, but wants to make the motors in-house in order to lower costs and improve quality and reliability. (Read more.)

Ford, Subaru, VW Win Insurance Industry Picks: By Ken Thomas

Jgayle@theconsumerlawgroup.com (News Author)12067 — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 08:00:00 EST

Provided by: Associated Press. The insurance industry's annual list of the safest new vehicles.
http://autos.yahoo.com/articles/autos_content_landing_pages/1168/ford-subaru-vw-win-insurance-industry-picks/

10 SUVs That Keep Going and Going and Going...: by Eric Mack Monday, July 20, 2009

Jgayle@theconsumerlawgroup.com (News Author)11811 — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 08:00:00 EST

See Vehix.com Article.

Most Popular Cars of 2009: By Jeff Voth, CarNews Media

Jgayle@theconsumerlawgroup.com (News Author)11618 — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 08:00:00 EST

The year 2009 will go down in history as a watershed moment for the automotive industry. American icons General Motors and Chrysler filed for bankruptcy protection, seizing as much taxpayer money as possible in their efforts to fend off impending doom. Both survived, but under much different circumstances than anticipated decades earlier.

Going or almost gone from the GM’s portfolio were Hummer, Saturn, Pontiac and Saab along with a myriad of employees. Chrysler, sold to Italian automaker Fiat SpA, was now under the control of Canadian-born chief executive Sergio Marchionne and harboured an immediate need for new product. A summer launch of the Cash for Clunkers program would help both, but for how long?

Ford was in amazingly good shape, declining offers for government aid in an effort to keep its counterparts from going under. Ford realized, without a healthy GM and Chrysler, it too would be out of business, not large enough on its own to keep afloat the supply network necessary to run an entire industry. New products were streaming full speed into the market, with Taurus, Fusion and Flex leading the way.

Not surprisingly, Yahoo! Autos most searched for car brands in 2009 represent the strengths and sometimes failures experienced in the auto industry this past year. Toyota and Honda placed first and second on our list. Both companies shared the spotlight with successes in new products, the 2010 Toyota Prius, and continuing sales of mainstays such as the Honda Civic and Accord. Not all was roses, however, Toyota suffered from unexpected recalls while both companies encountered downward trends and the need to exit racing, specifically Formula 1, to conserve cash and develop new products faster.

Ford ranked third, with Nissan fourth and BMW fifth. Nissan did feel the pinch of a tighter economy, but under the strong leadership of CEO Carlos Ghosn, it seemed well positioned to tread carefully while others succumbed to economic pressures. BMW continued their A-plan of designing new and exciting vehicles such as the 535i Gran Turismo, and for the most part, consumers responded. With additional product set to launch, both Nissan and BMW appear poised for additional success in 2010.

When it came to ranking the most searched for individual models, it turns out that the enduring popularity of the iconic American muscle car, such as the Chevy Camaro and Ford Mustang, is still tough to beat. In fact, five of the top 10 most searched cars are American made. However, smaller, fuel-efficient models are still top of mind with consumers as evidenced by the continued popularity of the Honda Civic, Mini Cooper and Smart ForTwo.

Volkswagen Steals Toyota's Crown as World's Largest Automaker: By Sean Tucker

Jgayle@theconsumerlawgroup.com (News Author)11405 — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 08:00:00 EST

The people want an empire, apparently, with that unassuming little black VW bug at the head of it.

The U.K.’s Guardian explains, "Volkswagen-Porsche has overtaken Toyota to become the world's largest car manufacturer as the German group benefits from state-backed stimulus packages around the globe." VW has "produced 4.4 million vehicles so far this year, outstripping its Japanese rival which has seen four million cars roll off production lines since January."

Ironically, VW reached the milestone in part by taking over Porsche – which it was forced to do after Porsche failed in an attempt to take over VW earlier this year.

"Of course," Autoblog notes, there is "some number play involved" in the Guardian’s numbers. "We're talking about the combined entity VW-Porsche, which has built 4.4 million cars to date, which is roughly 400,000 beyond Toyota's mark. However, Toyota halved its production earlier this year and shut down all its plants in February." VW also "benefited much more than Toyota from the European cash-for-clunkers programs," though Toyota saw more sales than VW spurred by the U.S. version of the car-swap program.

The news doesn’t just push Toyota down a notch. Jalopnik notes that VW has "passed Toyota and GM at the top of the heap." America’s largest automaker – the world’s largest just three years ago – now sits in third globally.

The change may not be permanent. The Guardian notes that Toyota "has the capacity to make 10 million vehicles a year but it expects to make seven million vehicles in 2009" as production picks back up. VW, however, may see its production increase long-term enough to stay ahead, or at least to take the title again even if it loses it later this year.

After all, Autoblog notes, "VW's also got the edge on Toyota" in the huge Chinese market, "where it has spent years introducing models."

6 Car Buying Mistakes You Might Have Made: by Katrina Ramser

Jgayle@theconsumerlawgroup.com (News Author)11222 — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 08:00:00 EST

A vehicle owner is likely to find less than two issues with their new car in the first three months of ownership, states a J.D. Power sales satisfaction study. Small things surface, such as the climate control knob not feeling just right or the stitching on the leather seats appearing cheap. But is something more serious gnawing at your investment?

Hopefully it's not the transmission, but more or less uncommon buying mistakes. No one likes to be pointed out the auto you so proudly acquired through hours of careful research and tough negotiations could actually be taking you for a long and tiring ride. If we don't learn from our mistakes we're destined to repeat – and pay huge monthly sums year in and year out for them – so here's 6 big ones.

Mistake # 1: Didn't hold your cards long or close enough

You traded your old car in before you settled on a final price for the new one. When the salesman asked what you wanted to pay each month, you named a figure. You didn't wait to purchase at the end of the year when dealers need to sell cars the most to make not just monthly and quarterly but annual goals. If any of the above sounds familiar, you took a few dings.

Mistake #2: Paid extra for too many new standards

There was a day when power windows came at an extra cost, but this oh-so-standard feature is a given – as are many other flashy new standards many carmakers are sticking the cost to you. Great buys honoring new standards as part of the overall vehicle package include an economic buy like the Subaru Impreza WRX, where the GPS navigation system, leather steering wheel and heated mirrors are built in the price; or an upscale Acura TSX offering a healthy size of features at one affordable price. Your knowledge of new standards could have been a negotiating chip.

Mistake #3: Bought way too small (or big) for your lifestyle

To slim down your transportation budget, you went with micro-wheels. But you failed to calculate long destination drives in small cars stink and now airplane rides add astronomical carbon emissions and costs. Breakthroughs on the mid-size SUV front include the Toyota Highlander Hybrid garnering an average of 24-mpg and a huge cut in greenhouse gases. Solo commuters stuck in traffic with half-ton, big-engine vehicles are also feeling their own private regrets.

Mistake #4: Erred on calculating unexpected costs of ownership

You did your homework and narrowed in insurance, gas and maintenance costs on top of your monthly car payment before you signed. But did you figure you'd tire of washing your big truck and need bi-monthly professional washes at $50 a pop, expensive accessories like roof racks or a Yakima, or gas prices would get goofy? The only way to accurately trace what your personal total monthly car budget looks like is to track receipts and tally up on a spreadsheet – unfortunately you’re now the defining experiment.

Mistake #5: Deal was short on cash, but long on an assortment of payments

Car loans are a necessity, but not payments blown into 72-month long oblivion. You'll pay thousands on interest no matter the rate. Always shoot for a three to four-year loan. Signing up for an extended warranty has proven itself to be a colossal a waste of dollars. Also, making a 20 percent down payment on big purchases is how society used to deal with these financial issues 30 years ago – its time for cash to make a comeback.

Mistake #6: Had your heart set on just this one car

To reach objectivity or simply a state of blasé, you've got to test cars like an auto journalist. That means inspecting dozens of cars, inside and out, for what attracts you and what doesn't. I've loved the looks of many rides only to change my opinion once seated inside them; I've also detested first appearances only to be sold after a week long driving affair. There might be brands more reliable as a whole than others, but lesser-than-thou makers do come out with some outstanding cars.

Don't feel like a chump if any of the above mistakes made contact with your ego and pocketbook. Fortunately, there are a lot of moves you can make today to ease the financial and emotional burden these 6 unforeseen mistakes caused.

Toyota to recall 3.8M vehicles over floor mats: By By Ken Thomas, Associated Press Writer

Jgayle@theconsumerlawgroup.com (News Author)10736 — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 08:00:00 EST

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Toyota Motor Corp. said Tuesday it will recall 3.8 million vehicles in the United States, the company's largest-ever U.S. recall, to address problems with a removable floor mat that could cause accelerators to get stuck and lead to a crash.

The recall will involve popular models such as the Toyota Camry, the top-selling passenger car in America, and the Toyota Prius, the best-selling gas-electric hybrid.

Toyota said it was still working with officials with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to find a remedy to fix the problem and said owners could be notified about the recall as early as next week. Toyota spokesman Irv Miller said until the company finds a fix, owners should take out the removable floor mat on the driver's side and not replace it.

"A stuck open accelerator pedal may result in very high vehicle speeds and make it difficult to stop a vehicle, which could cause a crash, serious injury or death," Miller said.

NHTSA said it had received reports of 102 incidents in which the accelerator may have become stuck on the Toyota vehicles involved. It was unclear how many led to crashes but the inquiry was prompted by a highspeed crash in August in California of a Lexus barreling out of control. As the vehicle hit speeds exceeding 120 mph, family members made a frantic 911 call and said the accelerator was stuck and they couldn't stop the vehicle.

"This is an urgent matter," Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said in a statement. "For everyone's sake, we strongly urge owners of these vehicles to remove mats or other obstacles that could lead to unintended acceleration."

The recall will affect 2007-2010 model year Toyota Camry, 2005-2010 Toyota Avalon, 2004-2009 Toyota Prius, 2005-2010 Tacoma, 2007-2010 Toyota Tundra, 2007-2010 Lexus ES350 and 2006-2010 Lexus IS250 and IS350.

Toyota's previously largest U.S. recall was about 900,000 vehicles in 2005 to fix a steering issue. The company declined to say how many complaints it had received about the accelerator issue.

The Japanese automaker warned owners that if they think their vehicle is accelerating out of control, they should check to see whether their floor mat is under the pedal. If a driver can't remove the floor mat, Toyota advises drivers to step on the brake pedal with both feet until the vehicle slows and then try to put it into neutral and switch the ignition to accessory power.

For vehicles with engine start/stop buttons, Toyota said the engine can be shut off by holding the button down for three seconds.

In the August incident near San Diego, the fiery crash of a 2009 Lexus ES 350 killed California Highway Patrol Officer Mark Saylor, 45, and three members of his family on State Route 125 in Santee. The runaway car was traveling at more than 120 mph when it hit a sport utility vehicle, launched off an embankment, rolled several times and burst into flames. One of the family members called police about a minute before the crash to report the vehicle had no brakes and the accelerator was stuck. The call ended with someone telling people in the car to hold on and pray, followed by a woman's scream.

NHTSA investigators determined that a rubber all-weather floor mat found in the wreckage was slightly longer than the mat that belonged in the vehicle, something that could have snared or covered the accelerator pedal.

Toyota spokesman John Hanson said the final report had not yet been submitted in the California case.

"We don't know what the actual cause was of that accident other than preliminary reports that have been published so it's impossible for us to comment on that particular incident," Hanson said.

In mid-September, Toyota ordered 1,400 Toyota and Lexus dealers nationwide to ensure that each new, used and loaner vehicles had the proper floor mats and that the mats were properly secured.

In September 2007, Toyota recalled an accessory all-weather floor mat sold for use in some 2007 and 2008 model year Lexus ES 350 and Toyota Camry vehicles because of similar problems.

For more information, consumers can contact the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's hotline at (888) 327-4236, Toyota at (800) 331-4331 or Lexus at (800) 255-3987.

Toyota Motor Corp.: http://www.toyota.com

Lexus: http://www.lexus.com.

Final Frontier: Below Dealer Cost: by Jonathan Welsh

Jgayle@theconsumerlawgroup.com (News Author)9081 — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 08:00:00 EST

provided by

Plunging auto sales are making this one of the worst times ever to sell cars. But if you're one of the relatively rare consumers shopping for a new vehicle, you're already in the driver's seat.

7 Ways to Be a Dolt About Credit: By Sheyna Steiner

Jgayle@theconsumerlawgroup.com (News Author)8935 — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 08:00:00 EST

Debt: The next big American crisis? By Chris Hansen, Correspondent Dateline NBC

Jgayle@theconsumerlawgroup.com (News Author)8109 — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 08:00:00 EST

6 Used-Car Traps and How to Avoid Them: By Jada A. Graves

Jgayle@theconsumerlawgroup.com (News Author)7881 — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 08:00:00 EST

For some used car shoppers it can be hard to be sure you got the best price, and only time will tell whether the car is dependable.

Although most used car sales go off without a hitch, sometimes there's miscommunication or purposeful deception that can sour the experience. However, you can prepare yourself for some of the common pitfalls used-car shoppers face when closing the deal. Keep these pointers in mind as you shop.

Better Business Bureau starts rating businesses with letter grades: By Eileen Ambrose -- Personal Finance

Jgayle@theconsumerlawgroup.com (News Author)7718 — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 08:00:00 EST

Recently, the Better Business Bureau scuttled its system of rating businesses and replaced it with letter grades.

Instead of a "satisfactory" or "unsatisfactory" rating, the BBB now issues grades F to A+. The BBB says using letters makes ratings easier to understand.

But the change has sparked controversy across the country.

Virginia Lawyers Weekly, January 26, 2009 - Lemon Law Verdict

Jgayle@theconsumerlawgroup.com (News Author)7232 — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 08:00:00 EST

Richmond, Va., September 5, 2008 - A Henrico County Circuit Court jury issued a verdict that Chrysler L.L.C., violated Virginia’s Lemon Law. The fees were paid on December 17, 2008.

An article about the verdict appeared in Virginia Lawyers Weekly on January 26, 2009. Read our article here.

Chrysler Violates Lemon Law, Has To Repurchase the Vehicle And Pays Over $70,000 in Legal Fees

Jgayle@theconsumerlawgroup.com (News Author)6786 — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 08:00:00 EST

Chrysler Violates Lemon Law, Has To Repurchase the Vehicle And Pays Over $70,000 in Legal Fees

Richmond, Va., September 5, 2008 - A Henrico County Circuit Court jury issued a verdict that Chrysler L.L.C., violated Virginia’s Lemon Law. The Plaintiff’s 2006 Jeep Commander had a bad odor from the a/c and heating vents causing the plaintiff serious nosebleeds and exacerbation of her allergies. The Plaintiff’s husband and several other people that rode in the car also complained of various ailments, such as light headedness, sinus drainage, and upper respiratory problems. Chrysler initially tried to fix the complaint of a "musty smell" or bad odor coming from the vehicle’s dash vents by cleaning it with chemicals, but then, according to the Plaintiffs, the chemical treatment caused such a bad odor, that it resulted in respiratory problems and the Plaintiff refused to drive it. Chrysler and its expert claimed the problem had been corrected and that there was no abnormal odor in the vehicle at any time during its inspections.

After two years of litigation, the Henrico jury found that Chrysler LLC had violated the Virginia Lemon Law and that it had to reimburse the Plaintiffs for all lease payments made to date, in the amount of $11,898.09, plus $2000 for their trade in, plus $1,613.91 for rental charges, plus $2,777.50 for the extra mileage they put on a substitute vehicle, plus payoff Chrysler Financial the remaining balance due on the lease, but that Chrysler was entitled to $986.27 for the mileage put on the Jeep Commander up to the date of the first notice of the problem to the Chrysler. Under the Lemon Law Chrysler was responsible for the Plaintiffs’ reasonable legal and expert fees, which, by agreement was to be heard in a separate, bifurcated hearing in front of trial judge on a later date if they were contested.

Chrysler did not agree that the trial fees of $69,000 were reasonable, and initially offered to pay $45,825.00. The disagreements continued, with fees continuing to increase. Chrysler’s attorney offered his "full authority" of $60,000, Plaintiffs’ countered with a final offer of $65,000, which was rejected. Plaintiffs’ filed their Motion For Expert and Legal Fees, and requested $76,680.00 in legal fees, plus their expert fees of about $4,000.00. Further negotiations continued, with Chrysler eventually agreeing to pay $75,250.00 for the fees and costs within thirty days, in addition to the jury award. These fees were paid on December 17, 2008.

John Cole Gayle, Jr., of The Consumer Law Group, P.C., in Richmond, Va., noted the fees incurred were avoidable since the Plaintiffs had offered to accept another comparable vehicle, an offer Chrysler not only rejected, but in when he asked if Chrysler wanted to settle, Chrysler’s attorney said, "John, that ship sailed long ago", but I will accept a nonsuit." Mr. Gayle estimates that this two year battle over a $30,000 Jeep cost Chrysler between $125,000.00 to $200,000.

CONSUMER WATCH: The downside of voluntary repossession

Jgayle@theconsumerlawgroup.com (News Author)2049 — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 08:00:00 EST

IRIS TAYLOR

TIMES-DISPATCH COLUMNIST

Sunday, January 14, 2007

Nedra Peyton of Richmond, a working mother of two small children, purchased a used car in October.

She agreed to make payments every two weeks for three years. She had no experience buying cars. The car came with a 180-day limited warranty.

Within the first month, Peyton said, the car broke down twice and had to be towed to the place she bought it for repair. It also was missing a heating and air-conditioning part and she said the front end was making a rubbing noise.

Each time she took the car back, the repairs were made but she was given a hard time, she said. The second time it was towed, she angrily told them to keep the car and refund her money.

She was told that if she left it, it would be a voluntary repossession and she'd still have to pay the note.

A voluntary repossession means the person voluntarily gave the vehicle back for whatever reason as opposed to it being involuntarily repossessed.

. . .

If this happens to you or someone you love, what should you do?

John C. Gayle Jr. of The Consumer Law Group on Libbie Avenue in Richmond responded.

Gayle cautioned against abandoning a newly purchased car at the dealership. "It doesn't make any sense," he said. For one reason, "it goes on their books as a voluntary repossession." That negatively impacts a person's credit score.

Steve Katz of the credit reporting agency TransUnion in Chicago and Rod Griffin of Experian in Dallas said whether it's a voluntary or involuntary repossession, a person's score will be impacted equally.

A repossession is "very, very bad," Griffin said. Another reason not to abandon the vehicle is the dealer may have misrepresented its condition at the time of sale.

If you've given it back, "How are you going to prove anything?" Gayle said.

Dealers resell repossessed vehicles at auction for whatever they can get, then come after the one it was repossessed from to collect the difference.

If a newly purchased used car turns out to be a clunker, you can sue under Virginia's so-called "Lemon Law" only if you bought it while there was still time left on the original manufacturer's warranty.

You have up to 18 months from the date that the warranty first went into effect to sue, Gayle said.

If you've purchased a used car that turns out to be a heap:

• Read your contract. If it says you purchased the car "as is," you're responsible for repairs and the dealer has no obligation to assist with repairs.

• Stay current on your payments. If you're late, the dealer has the right to take back the vehicle and sell it.

• You may be able to rescind the sale. "You really ought to get an attorney's advice" before doing this, Gayle said.

But, if you can't, stop driving the car and put the dealership on notice, by certified mail, that in 30 days you intend to rescind the sale unless it corrects the problem.

• Read your rights. Go to www.theconsumerlawgroup.com.

If you're planning to, but haven't yet purchased a used vehicle, run its vehicle identification number, or VIN, through Carfax.

It might be free through the dealership or $24.99 at www.carfax.com.

If possible, have it checked out at a body shop and by a mechanic.

What happened with Peyton?

She did not leave her car at the place she bought it. "I believe I have an oil leak" and the check engine light was on but "just went off," she said.

However, "I haven't had any major problems recently"

Peyton said she looked up the car's book value after buying it. "I am stuck with a $20,000 car worth only $7,000 [$13,000 for the car, plus interest]," she said.

Contact staff writer Iris Taylor at itaylor@timesdispatch.com or (804) 649-6349.

Misrepresentation costly for Norfolk dealership

Jgayle@theconsumerlawgroup.com (News Author)2706 — Thu, 24 May 2007 08:00:00 EST

Virginia Lawyers Weekly, Volume 21, Number 36, February 12, 2007 Sunshine Hardison told the salesman at Checkered Flag Motor Car Co. in Norfolk that she wanted a one-owner vehicle in her price range that had not been wrecked. The salesman assured her that the 2000 Hyundai Elantra she bought for $6,400 was just what she had asked for. In fact, the car had had several owners. It had been in a major front-end collision, and it had been repossessed. The salesman did not disclose that the car had been repossessed, as Virginia Code §59.1-200 requires. The transaction proved to be very expensive for the dealership. Retired Judge John E. Clarkson arbitrated Hardison's claims of fraud and violations of the Virginia Consumer Protection Act and awarded her a total of $114,400 - $2,500 in actual damages trebled under the VCPA because of what Clarkson found to be the willful and fraudulent misrepresentations of the dealership, $50,000 in punitive damages for fraud, $60,400 in attorneys' fees and costs and $4,700 in arbitration costs, less a $7,500 offset for the duplication of the VCPA willful misconduct and punitive damage awards. John Cole Gayle Jr. Of Richmond, who represented Hardison along with John M. Barrett of Virginia Beach, said the attorneys' fees reflected extended litigation before the arbitration. Hardison won a $10,000 judgment in general district court, which the dealership appealed to circuit court. The sales contract required arbitration of any claims, and the trial court finally decided to enforce the clause after several hearings on the issue. The parties agreed the The McCammon Group would arbitrate the claim, Gayle said. Gayle said the dealership contended that it was unaware of the vehicle's history. That contention was refuted by the company's own records, which showed multiple owners and the repossession, and the testimony of the owner of the car when it was wrecked. She said she had bought it from Checkered Flag and sold it back to the dealership after the wreck.

USED-VEHICLE PURCHASE

Jgayle@theconsumerlawgroup.com (News Author)1300 — Thu, 09 Mar 2006 08:00:00 EST

The following article appeared in The Virginian-Pilot on February 23, 2006: Bill is dropped over consumer concerns A bill that opponents called "a wolf in sheep's clothing" has been dropped before it could be considered in the House of Delegates. The legislation, SB153 , required auto dealers to inform potential buyers about the right to request an inspection before purchasing a used vehicle. The legislation also would have given legal protection to a car dealer if the buyer later contended that he or she was not informed of mechanical problems. It was that part of the proposal that drew criticism from a coalition of statewide poverty advocacy groups, consumer protection lobbyists, and Richmond-based used car dealer CarMax. In a press conference Wednesday, John Gayle, the Virginia coordinator for the National Association of Consumer Advocates, said the bill's death was a victory for poor people. At a time when a large number of hurricane-damaged vehicles are appearing on the market, residents need protection from dealers who might pass off salvaged cars as perfectly fine, he said. "Virginia would become a dumping ground for those vehicles," Gayle said. "This bill is terrible for Virginia consumers. The only people it would help is disreputable car dealers." The bill had passed the Senate 31-8, but Sen. Thomas Norment , R-James City, withdrew it from consideration this week after stronger opposition arose. Norment, who is part owner of a car dealership, had said the bill would have given drivers an unprecedented legal right to an inspection. He also had said that buyers were better off knowing a car's defects before the purchase, rather than going to court for damages after buying the vehicle. - Meghan Hoyer

J. Smith v. Casey Chevrolet, Circuit Court of Newport News, Virginia:

Jgayle@theconsumerlawgroup.com (News Author)564 — Thu, 21 Jul 2005 08:00:00 EST

Virginia has a statute called the "3% Rule," which permits car dealers to sell vehicles that have been damaged and repaired, without having to disclose the damage and repair, if the retail cost of repair is less than 3% of the vehicle's MSRP (Manufacturer's Suggested Retail Price). In this case, in which Mr. Gayle is co-counsel for the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff bought a new Corvette, which he later discovered had been damaged prior to sale. When the Plaintiff confronted the dealer, Casey, it said the repairs were from "lot" damage, that they were minor, and that it did not have to tell him about them. Casey said the repairs cost less than $1,500, but the Plaintiff's expert said the cost to repair the car properly would be over $5,000.00. The court has ruled that the 3% Rule was not meant to allow car dealers to conceal any type of damage, such as "lot" damage, but only applies to pre-delivery factory damage or in-transit damage. Thus, Casey Chevrolet can not use the 3% Rule as a defense in this case unless the damage was from pre-delivery factory damage or in-transit damage. Car dealers in Virginia, and in other states that have similar rules, have been using this rule to conceal any damage done to new vehicles, whether from accidents in transit or on the lot. As is alleged in this case, sometimes a car dealer will make sure that the repairs it makes are half measures, keeping the cost under 3% of the "MSRP," and then not mentioning anything to the new car buyer.

Charlie Falk Auto Wholesale, Inc. Pays Judgments

Jgayle@theconsumerlawgroup.com (News Author)353 — Fri, 08 Apr 2005 08:00:00 EST

Serna Laury v. Charlie Falk Auto Wholesale, Inc.; Stephanie Cruz v. Charlie Falk Auto Wholesale, Inc. In these cases, John Cole Gayle, Jr., of The Consumer Law Group, obtained two judgments against Charlie Falk Auto Wholesale, Inc. ("Falk"), a Virginia used-car dealer. The judgments amounted to approximately $90,000, which included punitive damages for fraud in the sale of automobiles. Falk refused to pay these judgments, claiming lack of funds and that the company was going out of business. The dealership then re-opened under another name. Mr. Gayle then applied to a fund established by the state of Virginia for compensation of our client's compensatory damages and attorney fees. This fund is set up to partially compensate consumers when dealerships go out of business after judgment for fraud. The maximum recovery is $20,000 per case. On the eve of receiving an award from the fund, and after Mr. Gayle advised Falk that he was filing another suit for fraudulently transferring assets during litigation, Falk capitulated and paid a compromise settlement of $81,000 to satisfy these judgments.

CONSUMER WATCH: Looking for options in tough cases

Jgayle@theconsumerlawgroup.com (News Author)322 — Tue, 08 Mar 2005 08:00:00 EST

In a recent Richmond Times Dispatch article, Iris Taylor wrote about two arbitration rulings against Charlie Falk's Auto Wholesale that John Cole Gayle, Jr. of The Consumer Law Group, won. Please be sure to read about Case Number 2 in the article.

Fine Print Binds Car Buyers

Jgayle@theconsumerlawgroup.com (News Author)306 — Tue, 01 Mar 2005 08:00:00 EST

On February 23, 2005, John Cole Gayle, Jr., of The Consumer Law Group, appeared on ABC World New Tonight. ABC news was covering a story about the binding arbitration clause that many consumers are forced to sign when they purchase a vehicle. The story was called "Reading the Fine Print...The legal rights you may be signing away without knowing it." To view a copy of the story, please go to:

Consumer Watch: Couple gets some relief in warranty case

Jgayle@theconsumerlawgroup.com (News Author)228 — Mon, 13 Dec 2004 08:00:00 EST

CONSUMER WATCH: Couple gets some relief in warranty case IRIS TAYLOR RICHMOND TIMES-DISPATCH POINT OF VIEW Sunday, December 12, 2004 In January 2003, I wrote about Jerry and Angie Barnes' extended warranty ordeal with Haynes Jeep Chrysler on West Broad Street. The couple had purchased a used Jeep Grand Cherokee from Haynes and then paid $1,247.45 for a five-year extended warranty. They wound up saddled with about $4,000 worth of repairs on the Jeep, which should have been covered by the warranty, they said. To their surprise, the five-year contract expired in only two years. A five-year contract should last for five years, they said. When they asked that the warranty be reinstated for the remainder of the five years, Haynes balked and refused to reinstate it, or to reimburse them for repairs. The manager said the warranty expired five years from when the car was delivered to the original owner, not - as the Barneses understood it - five years after the vehicle's limited warranty expired. The two sides eventually deadlocked and Haynes stopped returning their calls and mine. So, the Barneses took their case to John Cole Gayle Jr. of The Consumer Law Group PC in Richmond. This week, Angie Barnes confirmed that Haynes Jeep Chrysler settled with them out of court for $8,000. Haynes Jeep Chrysler had no comment for this article. "I guess it's like David beating Goliath," said Angie Barnes. "I feel like we were able to stop Goliath a little bit and get some concessions where normally people would not have gotten any. I've got this feeling of satisfaction." Haynes Jeep also did not get the "gag order" that it sought, she said - another victory, of sorts. A gag order would have kept the details of the settlement private. It was not a full victory, though. "We never got our warranty rein stated and we're stuck with a car that has so many problems," said Barnes. "We can't afford to buy another car. That's why we had to hang on to it. We'd have to put so much into it to get anything on a trade-in. Also, the Barneses had to split the settlement down the middle with the lawyer. "I guess I'm glad we at least got almost $4,000 to go toward what needs to be done," she said. "But, we're still out $4,000" for repairs already paid for. Having gone through the ordeal, Barnes has this advice for consumers: Have a lawyer review the warranty contract. Be sure the warranty begins when you think it begins. Don't buy a warranty until after you've read the contract. The Barneses signed the sales agreement, but said the contract was not mailed to them until about a month later. Gayle, the lawyer, said the Barneses' persistence paid off. "The message is, if you're persistent and make complaints and force merchants such as car dealers to live up to their promises, even if it involves litigation, often you will get some - but, not necessarily all - of what you want in settlement." He advises consumers who may be considering purchasing an extended vehicle warranty to, "as difficult as it is, read the extended warranty's language" and don't simply rely on discussions with the dealer's employees.

Virginia Lemon Law - Motor Vehicle Warranty Enforcement Act

Jgayle@theconsumerlawgroup.com (News Author)225 — Fri, 10 Dec 2004 08:00:00 EST

TYPE OF ACTION: Virginia Lemon Law - Motor Vehicle Warranty Enforcement Act Type of Damages: Full refund of money paid towards price of car, costs, attorney fees Name of Case: W. and C. Williams v. Daimler Chrysler Corporation Court: Henrico County Circuit Court Name of Judge: The Honorable Daniel T. Balfour Settlement: Last demand was to take the car and agree to payoff the loan which was approximately $15,000 plus pay attorney fees accumulated to that point (estimated to be about $10 -15K at that point). Chrysler refused, offered the client $5K while keeping the car. Jury Award: $55,028.59 Breakdown: $33,829.76 for payments made to date, payoff of the lien and court costs, $23,250.00 in attorney's fees (a compromised amount agreed upon by the parties), minus $2,051.17 for mileage). Plaintiff returned the vehicle Attorney for Plaintiffs: John Cole Gayle, Jr. Other Useful Information: This vehicle, a 2002 Jeep Liberty, resided in the Tidewater area and was used by Mr. Williams primarily for commuting. Plaintiffs first consulted counsel in March, 2003, when the Jeep had about 50,000 miles on it, but by the time of trial, in June 2004, it had over 90,000 miles. Counsel knew a car with 50,000K miles was a risk, but decided to take the case anyway. Mrs. Williams refused to drive it after it was purchased for her since she alleged the speedometer and odometer would fluctuate wildly on occasion and the air bag light coming on scared her. Both plaintiffs alleged that at times the engine ran rough, there was a banging and clanging in the engine, the engine would stall out, and the engine light would come on, and the air bag light would come on for a while then go out. Some of these problems began with the purchase of the car, and, despite numerous repair attempts both before the warranty expired and afterwards, some of the problems continued to exist up to the present mileage of 90,000 miles. At trial the only problem that Mr. Williams, the primary driver, testified to experiencing was the engine banging and air bag light, however Mrs. Williams claimed the electrical problems continued to exist. Chrysler's expert could find nothing wrong with the vehicle. No expert for plaintiffs testified at the trial. Shortly before trial Chrysler moved for a continuance since its expert could not appear in person, to which counsel for plaintiffs objected, which motion was denied. Prior to trial the court granted DaimlerChryler's motion that any repairs made to the vehicle after the warranty ran out at 36,000 miles would not be admissible at trial, but on motion of plaintiffs' counsel also ruled that, since no repair after warranty expiration at 36K miles was admissible, whatever happened to the vehicle after 36k miles, including the current mileage , was not be relevant and thus was not admissible. The court also ruled that the Lemon Law's remedies are mandatory, and thus the jury's only decision was that of liability. If the jury found the Lemon Law had been violated, then the remedy would be imposed by the court, along with a determination of what the reasonable attorney fees and costs would be. The trial lasted one day, and the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiffs.

Dealership Found Guilty of Fraud, Jury Awards Punitive Damages

Jgayle@theconsumerlawgroup.com (News Author)184 — Fri, 12 Nov 2004 08:00:00 EST

Richmond, Va., October 6, 2004. - A Henrico County jury has found a Henrico County car dealership guilty of intentionally misrepresenting a vehicle as never having been in an accident when it knew it had a "Salvage History." The Circuit Court jury on Thursday, October 7, 2004, found that Windsor Auto Sales committed intentional fraud and violated the Virginia Consumer Protection Act when it described the 1996 Ford Bronco to the plaintiff as undamaged even though Windsor Auto had purchased the vehicle with an invoice that stated "Salvage History." Windsor Auto's owner testified that he told the plaintiff that the vehicle had been in an accident. The jury awarded the plaintiff, Faye Teets, $6,000 in damages and awarded $34,000 punitive damages as well, Gayle said. The lawsuit was based on intentional fraud and a violation of the Virginia Consumer Protection Act. "Ms. Teets was unaware that the vehicle had been in an accident. She even thought that car dealers had a duty to disclose whether a car they are selling has been in a wreck. Unfortunately, dealers most of the time do not volunteer this information," Gayle said, "...and the buyer who trusts dealers to disclose damage during negotiations, is living in a dream world." "Many dealers either will not advise of any damage, or will disclose some damage claiming it is minor, and intentionally not check the rest of the car in order to remain 'wilfully blind' about the other damage in the car so they can claim ignorance if the vehicle is returned due to prior wreck damage. When a car has any damage, that is a red flag that there may be some hidden damage lurking in a less than obvious place, and that a detailed inspection is necessary. When a car dealer learns of any damage the reputable ones will inspect the car to see if there is other accident damage, and if they find significant damage, then they should return it to the previous owner," Gayle observed. "This should be a warning to car dealers to stop selling cars unless they have done a thorough inspection, and if they find some damage, either return the car, or be honest to customers and take less of a profit." Gayle commented, "State inspections, nor the new fad, Car Fax reports, are no guarantee that a car has not been significantly damaged. The best way to avoid what happened here is to ask if the car has ever been damaged, and even if the answer is 'No,' demand that a body shop of your choice inspect it; if a dealer refuses to allow this, leave." The two-day case was tried before Circuit Judge Gary A. Hicks.