Published Lemon Law Verdicts and Decisions



Gutierrez v. Nissan
Full refund provided against Nissan, with claim that brake noise was normal characteristic.

Barte v. Kia
Full refund of over 27, 000 and attorney’s fee provided for Kia with engine problem.

Black v. Volvo North America Corp, 92 N.J.A.R.2d (1992) (N.J.A.R. refers to the New Jersey Administrative Reporter where reports of published decisions have been maintained

Boyle v. American Isuzu Motors, 95 N.J.A.R.2d 128 (1995)

Gantt v. Volkswagen, 95 N.J.A.R.2d 32
This case sets down the important principle that the manufacturer is responsible for any items installed. The dealer installed an alarm which Volkswagen said was unauthorized. Accepting our position, the Court said if the vehicle malfunctioned, it would be a lemon.

Giglio v. Daimler Chrysler Motors Co, OAL DKT. NO. CMA9965-02
Courts have decided water leak claims in different ways – sometimes saying conditions did not constitute a substantial impairment. Here we were able to demonstrate through an expert and the client’s testimony that there was a substantial problem, and secured a refund.

Merisier v.  C&J Auto, Inc.,  OAL-DKT NO . CMA-5617-00
The Division Director, on Administrative Appeal, reversed a lower court finding and ordered repurchase.

Taylor v. Volvo,  OAL DKT. NO: CMA5732-00
The court ordered a refund based upon a vehicle odor, rejecting contentions the condition did not constitute a substantial impairment.

Umbach v. Volkswagen of American,  93 N.J.A.R.2d 11 (1992)
Repurchase ordered, rejecting contention that uneven shifting at highway speeds was a normal characteristic of the vehicle

Would you like your case personally handled by an experienced attorney.  Call now for a Free Consultation.

Free Consultation on Your Do Not Call List Claim