Some tips on communicating with the judge and handling your lemon law case. 

1. Remember the judge sets the tone.  Some are formal, others less so. 

2. Realize the challenges and statistics  Manufacturers win approximately 70% of the cases that are tried.  No, simply because you believe you have 3 repairs for a problem does not mean you will automatically win.  Let's review some of these challenges.  

A. Defense that the Problem Does Not Substantially Impairs Use, Value or Safety 

One Court said this.  

The petitioner has the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the credible evidence, that he is entitled to relief under the Lemon Law and the regulations promulgated thereunder. Atkinson v. Parsekian, 37 N.J. 143, 149 (1962); Chudezinski v. Chrysler Motor Corporation, OAL Dkt No. CMA 8800-91 (Nov. 7, 1991).
The petitioner complains of a popping or crackling sound emanating from the vehicle after the vehicle is turned off. In the majority of OAL decisions, the existence of an annoying noise has rarely been found to substantially impair the vehicle.  In McGinn v. Hyundai Motor America, Inc., OAL Dkt. No. CMA7530-90 (Oct. 18, 1990) it was concluded that while the noise level of the engine when petitioner's vehicle is driven in overdrive may be an annoyance, it did not constitute a defect. See also, Kriegisch v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., OAL Dkt. No. CMA5413-90 (Aug. 8, 1990) (banging noise emanating from right rear portion of the vehicle was not a chronic problem, resulting in no impairment in the use, safety or value of the vehicle); Reid v. Mitsubishi Motor Sales of America, OAL Dkt. No. CMA6186-90 (Aug. 23, 1990) (intermittent "squealing" noise occurring when the brakes were applied does not rise to the level of a substantial impairment of value); Wiener v. Hyundai, 91 NJA.R.2d. (CMA) Vol. 36 (gear noise did not amount to substantial impairment); Dogra v. Mitsubishi Motor Sales of America, 92 NJA.R.2d CMA Vol 3, 73 (various annoying noises do not amount to substantial impairment). In Pun Son Kim v. Chrysler Motor Corporation, OAL Dkt. No CMA 4020-98 (June 2, 1998) a clicking noise on hard acceleration was held not to be a substantial impairment. The Administrative Law Judge held that noise alone may be an irritant and a nuisance, but it may also be characteristic of the vehicle itself, under varying conditions, a characteristic which must be shown to substantially impair its use value or safety.  Troy v BMW (1991). 

Sometimes the answer is showing that this is not simply a noise but a problem impacting the functioning of a major component.  

B. Problems with Notice

The Troy Court also found an issue with notice saying  "The Division of Consumer Affairs has consistently ruled that the "Last Chance Letter" and a subsequent opportunity for repair are prerequisites to filing a claim, and is jurisdictional. See Viccaro v. Mitsubishi Motor, 95 N.J.A.R.2d (CMA).2Q, where it was held that a failure to give the manufacturer a final opportunity to repair an alleged defect pursuant to the steps outlined in the regulation was fatal to a consumer's claim. In Millar v. Chrysler Corporation 92 N.J.A.R.2d (CMA) 180, failure to send a correct Last Chance Notice to the manufacturer required dismissal of the complaint.  In Cortes v. Ford Motor Company, OAL Dkt. No. CMA471-90 (May 14, 1990) the Director of the Division of Consumer Affairs held that the petitioner's failure to send an adequate letter deprived the manufacturer of its right to attempt a final repair."

3. Lack of Expert and Overemphasis on How You Feel About the Car.  Some consumers may rely upon their beliefs about the car and some courts may find that insufficient.  In Singer v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. (d/b/a Lexus), A-2981-21 (App. Div. June 30, 2023): The court affirmed summary judgment dismissing a Lemon Law claim based solely on a recall notice (low-pressure fuel pump). Plaintiff's fear that the defect might manifest and his shaken confidence were insufficient without actual manifestation or proof of a nonconformity.

Instead the Court set forth a mixed objective standard coupled with subjective belief noting  shaken confidence is but one factor and not necessarily dispositive.Sometimes a mechanic is needed to explain the significance of a problem.   

4. Misunderstanding the statutory presumption  No, the three repair language does not mean you automatically win, just that the burden is shifted to the manufacturer to produce evidence and once it does, the impact of the presumption becomes minimal.  

5. Not Looking at Early Settlement  Frequently the consumer will want to consider settlement and allow the judge to advance. 

. 

CALL FOR A FREE CONSULTATION ON YOUR LEMON LAW CLAIM