Reshonia Williams v. Savings Auto Center (2011)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

On April 29, 2008, the plaintiff purchased a used motor vehicle from the defendant dealer.   The vehicle became inoperable at the end of November 2008 because the timing belt failed.   The vehicle was eventually repossessed by the financing company and the plaintiff now seeks damages resulting from the loss of the vehicle.

The vehicle was sold to the plaintiff with a warranty that lasted for 60 days or three thousand miles, whichever came first.   The vehicle became inoperable almost seven months after the day of purchase when the plaintiff had operated the vehicle for over 10,000 miles.   Accordingly, the specific language of the warranty did not apply.

At the time of the purchase of the vehicle, the owner's manual was not provided to the plaintiff, but, within a few weeks thereafter, the defendant obtained the manual, at his own expense, and gave it to the plaintiff.   The owner's manual indicates that for maintenance purposes the timing belt should be serviced after 72,000 miles.   At the time of the failure, the vehicle had been operated for 76,372 miles and at the date of purchase, the vehicle had been operated for 66,347 miles.

A couple weeks after the purchase, the check engine light went on in the vehicle and the plaintiff started to hear a noise emanating from the engine.   The plaintiff took the vehicle to a different dealer for a diagnosis of the particular problem and was provided with an inspection report indicating the cause of the particular problem and the cost to repair the same.   The diagnosis did not refer to the timing belt.   The plaintiff returned the vehicle to the defendant dealer and provided it with the diagnosis report.   The defendant dealer then made the repairs, at no charge to the plaintiff, and returned the car to her.   Thereafter the engine light did not go on.   Within a couple of weeks, however, the plaintiff began to hear noises from the engine.   She returned the vehicle on a couple of occasions to the dealer who test drove it and could not find any abnormal noise.   The plaintiff claims that the dealer should have been aware of the fact that the engine noise was related to the timing belt and therefore she had brought the vehicle in for repairs well within the warranty period.   The defendant denied the existence of any abnormal noise.

There was no expert testimony submitted on behalf of the plaintiff.   There was no evidence that those noises heard by the plaintiff were in any way related to the eventual failing of the timing belt.   It is also apparent that the diagnoses within the warranty period by an independent dealer did not attribute either the check engine light or the noise to any timing belt issues.   The court is unable to find the timing belt itself was deficient at any time during the warranty period or that the dealer had been aware, or should have been aware, of that fact.   Based upon the evidence presented, the timing belt failure did not arise until well after the expiration of the 60 day/3,000 mile warranty period.

Accordingly, judgment may enter in favor of the defendant.   No evidence was presented with respect to the counterclaim nor were any claims made with respect to it.   Accordingly, judgment may enter in favor of the plaintiff on the counterclaim.

RUSH, J.T.R.

Rush, William B., J.T.R.