Wisconsin lemon law Benefits the Patient

A woman successfully wins the right to have her vehicle replaced, while the courts rule that the spirit of the law trumps the letter of the law in Wisconsin.

More below.

Judge rules in favor of woman despite failure to follow letter of law

Wisconsin was an early adopter in vehicle lemon laws, creating a law to benefit consumers in 1984. The state’s law, like similar laws in many states, allows an owner of a defective vehicle to seek replacement or a refund in cases where a vehicle proves unrepairable over a specific period of time.

In the case of one woman, a resident of Hartland, that law ended up costing Mazda nearly one third of a million dollars.

The case seems fairly straightforward - Adele Garcia purchased a 2001 Mazda SUV. After a short period of time, the transmission failed. After numerous repairs, the vehicle ended up having four different transmissions, and none of them seemed to work correctly. She sought protection under the Wisconsin lemon law, and thought that the matter would be resolved quickly.

It should have been, but the Mazda dealership required Ms. Garcia to pay some $2200 in exchange for receiving a new car. Ms. Garcia hired a lawyer.

At this point, the case became quite complicated, and before it was over, Mazda had to pay $60,000 to Ms Garcia, $138,000 to her attorney and an estimated $100,000 to their own attorneys. All because they elected not to simply swap vehicles.

The legal wrangling involved a piece of minutiae in the law. Ms. Garcia wrote a letter to Mazda, asking for a replacement vehicle under the lemon law. According to Mazda, while she did do that, she did not expressly offer to sign over the title of her existing vehicle to Mazda in exchange for receiving the new vehicle. It seems obvious to most observers that if someone asks to have their vehicle “replaced” via the lemon law, that they would, in turn, give up the existing vehicle as part of the exchange. Apparently, the Wisconsin statute specifically requires the vehicle owner to offer to sign over the title of the existing vehicle in writing when making a request for a vehicle replacement. Ms. Garcia did not do that.

The judge in the case reacted in a reasonable manner, pointing out that while the law exists to help consumers, it is unreasonable to expect consumers to “carry statute books under their arms.” He ruled that while the law clearly states that the offer to sign over the title in exchange for a replacement vehicle must be made, it is also clear that a request for a replacement vehicle adequately implies an offer to sign over the title of the defective vehicle.

It seems unfortunate that such a small amount of legal language should have held up replacement of this vehicle for several years, but that is how the court system often works. What seems truly odd is that Mazda wouldn’t have examined potential costs of this case ahead of time. It seems obvious, even to a casual observer, that replacing the vehicle, with or without an explicit offer to sign over the title, would have been much more cost effective than litigating the case. Even if Mazda had won the case, the company would have been out much more money than if they had simply replaced the SUV in the first place.

There is a lesson here for consumers. Read the lemon law carefully, and if you have an doubts about the statute, consult an attorney who specializes in lemon law cases.

If you have a van, car, or pickup truck, you should cover your investment. Auto insurance is expensive, but why pay a lot if you don't have to? InsureMe can provide a quick price quote from an insurance company near where you live at a reasonable rate.