Case Summary - Salazar

The preceding testimonials or endorsements does not constitute a guarantee, warranty or prediction regarding the outcome of your legal matter.

TYPE OF CASE: CONSUMER FRAUD-AUTO SALES

CONFIDENTIAL: No

AMOUNT: TOTAL AMOUNT OF SETTLEMENT: $ 190,000.00. SPECIAL DAMAGES: $ 30,000.00. OTHER: $ 160,000.00 IN ATTORNEY'S FEES, GENERAL DAMAGES AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES.

ATTORNEYS: PLAINTIFF: ROBERT F. BRENNAN, ADDRESS AS ABOVE

EXPERTS: PLAINTIFF: DAVID STIVERS, DEALERSHIP PRACTICES; TIMOTHY SAURWEIN AND MIKE DE LA PENA, AUTOMOTIVE AND COLLISION EXPERTS.

DEFENSE:

DICK SCHMIDT, EMPLOYEE OF CHRYSLER CORP., AUTOMOTIVE MECHANICS AND DEALERSHIP PRACTICES; JOHN SAVICOOL, EMPLOYEE OF YUCCA VALLEY CHRYSLER-PLYMOUTH, AUTOMOTIVE MECHANICS AND COLLISION INSPECTION.

FACTS OF CASE:

On February 26, 1997, plaintiff Crystal Salazar purchased a used 1995 Chrysler Lebaron from Yucca Valley Chrysler-Plymouth for $22,840.33. She also purchased a Chrysler extended warranty for the vehicle. Sales personnel at the dealership specifically represented to her that the car was a lease return vehicle and had not been used as a rental car and had not been bought at an auction. She drove it for several months, and noted several recurring mechanical and body problems with the vehicle. In the fall of 1996, she was advised that the vehicle had frontal collision damage, which was not disclosed to her when she purchased the vehicle. She tried to get the dealership to refund her purchase price in exchange for returning the vehicle, but the dealership would never commit to refunding the full purchase price.

Subsequent investigation revealed that the car had been a rental car in the Dollar Rental fleet when it had sustained substantial collision damage in November of 1995. Dollar had the vehicle repaired at Target Auto Body in El Segundo. Plaintiff contended that Dollar and Target conspired to deflate the price of the collision repairs so that the vehicle remained eligible for Chrysler's "Guaranteed Depreciation Program", whereby Chrysler would repurchase rental vehicles from rental car companies, such as Dollar, for guaranteed prices if the vehicles did not have frame damage and if the vehicles had repaired collision damage with a value less than $1500.00.

PLAINTIFF’S CONTENTIONS:

That Dollar and Target deliberately concealed frame damage and deliberately deflated the price of the collision repairs to keep the vehicle eligible for the Guaranteed Depreciation Program, so that Dollar would recapture its investment in the vehicle.

DEFENSE CONTENTIONS:

That Plaintiff had rejected sufficient pre-litigation settlement offers, which would have restored her down payment but would not have paid off her car loan. Defendants also contended that the damage to the vehicle was not serious and did not affect the use, value or safety of the vehicle. Chrysler Corp. Contended that it had no knowledge of the alleged actions by Dollar and Target Auto Body, and if Chrysler had known, it would have removed the vehicle from its Guaranteed Depreciation Program. Target and Dollar contended that they had repaired the vehicle according to industry standards and had not deliberately deflated the costs of repairs.

OTHER INFORMATION:

The case settled during the course of a three-session mediation with Andrew Patterson of Ivams.

<<<BACK