Hines v. Volkswagen of America, Inc
695 N.W.2d 84, 265 Mich. App. 432 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Michigan's lemon law, MCL 257.1403, a consumer is not automatically entitled to relief merely by showing that a new motor vehicle was out of service for repairs for 30 or more days. The 30-day period only creates a rebuttable presumption that a reasonable number of repair attempts have occurred, and the consumer must still prove that the same defect or condition continues to exist.
Facts:
- On January 30, 2001, plaintiff leased a new 2001 Volkswagen Beetle manufactured by Volkswagen of America, Inc.
- Beginning around March 2001, plaintiff experienced repeated problems with the vehicle's engine, including stalling.
- On one occasion, March 12, 2001, the vehicle was towed to the dealership and remained out of service for 39 days awaiting an engine computer module.
- Plaintiff returned the vehicle to the dealership for service on at least three other occasions in May and June 2001 for similar complaints, including a rough engine and illuminated warning lights.
- On June 6, 2001, plaintiff sent a certified letter to Volkswagen of America, Inc., detailing the history of problems and requesting a final repair attempt.
- On June 29, 2001, plaintiff brought the vehicle to the dealership for a final time, complaining of shifting problems and stalling, but the dealership was unable to duplicate or diagnose any problem.
- Plaintiff never brought the vehicle to the dealership for service after the June 29, 2001 visit.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff filed a complaint against Volkswagen of America, Inc. in a Michigan trial court, alleging claims under the state's lemon law.
- Plaintiff filed a motion for summary disposition, arguing she was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
- The trial court granted plaintiff's motion, concluding that the vehicle being out of service for over 30 days was sufficient to establish her claim.
- The trial court entered a judgment awarding plaintiff damages, attorney fees, and an order for defendant to terminate the lease.
- Volkswagen of America, Inc., as appellant, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a consumer establish entitlement to relief under Michigan's lemon law as a matter of law simply by demonstrating that their new vehicle was out of service for repairs for a total of 30 or more days within the first year of ownership?
Opinions:
Majority - Wilder, J.
No. A consumer is not entitled to relief under the lemon law merely by showing that the vehicle was out of service for 30 or more days. The statute, MCL 257.1403, requires the consumer to prove three elements: (1) the defect was reported to the manufacturer, (2) the defect continues to exist after being reported, and (3) the vehicle was subjected to a reasonable number of repairs. The '30 days out of service' provision merely creates a rebuttable presumption that a 'reasonable number of repairs' has occurred; it does not satisfy the other statutory requirements as a matter of law. The plaintiff must still demonstrate that the same defect continues to exist. Because there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the defect still existed, particularly since the dealership could not find a problem on the final repair visit, the trial court erred in granting summary disposition.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies that the '30 days out of service' provision of Michigan's lemon law is not a strict liability trigger but rather a procedural tool that creates a rebuttable presumption. It prevents a consumer from winning a lemon law claim on summary disposition based solely on the vehicle's time in the repair shop. The ruling preserves the manufacturer's right to challenge the continuing existence of a defect, thereby requiring a full factual inquiry by the trial court. This holding makes it more difficult for plaintiffs to win lemon law cases without going to trial if the manufacturer can produce any evidence that the defect no longer exists.
