You are here:
Auto News >
Arizona Supreme court rules lessee can't sue automaker over lemon

Arizona Supreme court rules lessee can't sue automaker over lemon

Posted Mar 16th 2006 1:30PM

CommentsAdd

The Arizona Supreme Court has ruled that a disgruntled lessee of a Jeep Cherokee can’t legally sue DaimlerChrysler under two federal and state consumer warranty protection laws. The state Supreme Court’s decision overturned a Court of Appears ruling that gave the man the right to sue the automaker. The court reached its decision on grounds that the laws only apply to purchasing customers – not lessees.

Category: Car Buying, SUV

Tags: Arizona Supreme Court, ArizonaSupremeCourt, Cherokee, consumer's rights, Consumer'sRights, DaimlerChrysler, DCX, Jeep, Lemon Law, LemonLaw

New Features From Our Partners

Car Finder Helps You Find Your Perfect Car
Automotive Topics In-Depth
How To Read A Vehicle History Report

2010 New York International Auto Show

Add a Comment

Sign in »

8 Comments

Filter by:

anahit

Unfortunately, the link isn't working for me and I'm too lazy to look up the case myself, especially if I'm not getting paid for it.

Justin, I'm glad you brought up logic. Are you seriously equating product liability law (i.e. the car blows up from turning the heater on) to warranty/lemon law (i.e. the heater switch falls off)? If so, you're a real legal trailblazer. Either way, I did like the tough guy puffery at the end.

March 16 2006 at 8:25 PM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down Reply

DKB_SATX

Actually the case was pretty easy to find... and says nothing about the specifics of the problems.

http://www.supreme.state.az.us/argument/05Summaries/12.011.05.pdf

It does, however, say that the lease company is Chrysler Financial Company, L.L.C. so my supposition about them not being willing to pursue the issue with Mamma Chrysler is probably correct. There ended up being a difference of opinion at some point about what (if anything) was actually wrong with the vehicle, with the plaintiff hiring his own expert. All the case summary says is that the problems "included noise problems" and weren't fixed to the plaintiff's satisfaction, but then again I can't think of anything satisfying about a 2000 Jeep Cherokee anyway.

March 16 2006 at 7:30 PM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down Reply

DKB_SATX

Jiggabyte: Let's say you live in AZ (the state in question) and in Phoenix or Tucson, and the problem with your leased car is the AC. Your AC is croaking every few months, the dealer is more or less happy to fix it but because this particular type of car is having a problem it takes days/weeks to get the part(s). I'd say that a new car without AC in Phoenix would be a classic lemon-law case. Your lease company has no real reason to care, since the manufacturer's warranty is supposed to cover this, but they also aren't interested in letting you out of your lease or compensating you for the time/trouble to constantly have this fixed and sweat while waiting for the part.

The article unfortunately tells us little about what was actually wrong with the plaintiff's vehicle, so it might have been 3 different things 4 times each (with a 5th thrown in on one to get us to lucky 13) or the AC or climate control may have died 13 times. It might have been lots of different problems, but the point is that the lease company isn't apparently bound by the lemon laws, and it seems that they weren't interested in pursuing the lemon-law claim with Daimler-Chrysler. It's possible that the owner would be able to sue the lease company for not supporting his lemon-law claim with Daimler-Chrysler, but they probably have 1) a lucrative relationship with Daimler-Chrysler and 2) a lease contract specifically absolving them from any responsibility and requiring the lessee to settle disputes through arbitration.

I say let the lessee beware, but then I don't think leasing is great in the first place, and if he'd bought the car he'd have been able to make Daimler-Chrysler buy it back a long time ago.

March 16 2006 at 7:20 PM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down Reply

joe

Thats fucking retarded. It will probably get overturned in federal court since this involves interstate commerce.

"How do they get "screwed" with a lemon? They don't own the car."
If you lease a car and you are injured due to a design defect that can't be fixed by the dealer what would you do by your logic? Think before you talk.

March 16 2006 at 5:16 PM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down Reply

anahit

You're not subsidizing some bidnissman's wife's personal car. The tax code doesn't allow writing off personal vehicles (except for specific exceptions relating to specific drives).

Therefore the only way you're subsidizing someone else's personal vehicle is if they're committing tax fraud.

Yeah, plenty of people lease for foolish reasons but for some people leasing makes perfect sense. I don't lease, and apparently neither do prior commentors, but that doesn't make all lessees stupid.

This suit sounds silly for the reason #2 said--the guy didn't own the car so how exactly is he injured? I'm no Magnuson-Moss expert and I certainly don't know jack about AZ lemon law, but common sense says the those laws are intended for owners since they, well, own the damn thing.

But good to see he prolly wasted a ton of money paying appellate lawyers when he lacked standing in the first place.

March 16 2006 at 4:44 PM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down Reply

Glenn A.

I always thought it took a special kind of dim-bulb to actually lease a car, anyway. Never have done it.

I didn't like renting a house, either. I bought as quickly as I could.

I know the "reasons" people blabble on for leasing - tax breaks, for one.

Why should I subsidize some dimbrain businessman's wife's daily drive with my taxpayer money?

Correct. NONE OF US SHOULD.

March 16 2006 at 3:44 PM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down Reply

Jiggabyte

How do they get "screwed" with a lemon? They don't own the car. Yes, they are obliged to maintain the car for the lease period, even if that means paying for something out-of-pocket if it's not covered by the warranty. It's in the agreement and a risk you take as a lessor.

IMO it's absolutely ridiculous to lease a car for a term that extends beyond the length of the warranty -- say, a 4-year lease on a car that has a 3-year warranty. That's just asking for trouble.

Perhaps these people should go back to buying cars they can actually afford.

March 16 2006 at 3:06 PM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down Reply

DKB_SATX

Yet another reason for people not to lease. Not only is it a way for lots of people to drive a more-expensive car than they can afford to actually buy, but they can get screwed with a lemon as well. I'd bet that lease companies couldn't care less about the quality of the car itself as long as they get their payments, but if large numbers of a particular car they lease turn out to be lemons it'll hurt them on capital costs on the back end.

March 16 2006 at 2:07 PM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down Reply