Maryland for some years has had a statute called the Maryland Automotive Warranty Enforcement Act, known as the Lemon Law. It is designed to provide additional relief to consumers, when repeated efforts to repair a defect fail. Maryland’s intermediate appellate court last week explained just what a consumer needs to prove in an automotive defect claim, in the case of Lains v. Volkswagen of America.
According to the opinion, in 2004 Lains purchased a Volkswagen from a dealer that was a demonstration model, with 5289 miles on it. He was given a Limited New Vehicle Warranty for defects in materials or workmanship, good for 4 years or 50,000 miles. Lains claimed that almost immediately he regretted his purchase, and over two years brought the vehicle in over 20 times for service.
The Court described his various complaints, and the efforts of the dealership to address them. They included the tires making a strange noise, problems with loose trim, complaints that the windshield washer fluid and exhaust made him nauseous. He also claimed that the tires became cupped, and most importantly that the vehicle hesitated when he tried to accelerate. The dealership tried many things to satisfy him, repairing the smaller items, installing a new fuel pump and rotating tires.
After two years Lains sued under the Maryland Lemon law, under the Magnuson-Moss warranty act alleging breaches of warranty, and the Maryland Consumer Protection Act alleging false and deceptive trade practices. Just before trial the Court heard evidence from Lains, and received 20 repair invoices. However, he had no expert witness to confirm his alleged complaints, while an expert for Volkswagen said he could find no specific defect to explain these complaints. The Judge granted judgment before trial to Volkswagen, and Lains appealed.
The appellate court agreed with the trial judge that since Lains had no expert to prove a defect, he could not recover. It noted that a Magnuson-Moss claim requires proof of a defect. Since these automotive issues are beyond the knowledge of the average juror, expert testimony to show a defect in parts or workmanship is required.
The Court explained that the Lemon Law provides that if a defect cannot be repaired after four attempts, or is the car is out of service for 30 days during the warranty period, the consumer may be entitled to get his money back. Again, however, the law requires adequate proof that there is a defect, and it held that without an expert the word of the consumer is not enough. The dealer’s efforts to address his complaints were held insufficient to prove there really was a defect. In the absence of proof of a defect, he could also not prove false or deceptive trade practices.
This case illustrates that just complaining about your car is not enough to prove a right to a legal remedy. You need a mechanic, engineer, or other expert to show the vehicle is indeed defective.