• Mortle, et al. v. DaimlerChrysler Corporation, Case No. 04-CV-1291(2006 Jury Decision)

  Mr. Mortle and business partner, Mr. Kiriaki, purchased a 2003 Dodge Viper SRT-10 for $78,795.00. After their vehicle was out of service more than 30 days and in for repair more than four times due to problems with rear end noise, transmission, clutch, and pressure plate, they requested that DaimlerChrysler provide them with a refund. DaimlerChrysler refused to provide relief and the matter went to trial. The jury found in favor of Mr. Mortle and Mr. Kiriaki. Chrysler appealed the decision, however the case was settled shortly after the appeal and the appeal was dismissed. DaimlerChrysler paid Mr. Mortle and Mr. Kiriaki over $190,000.00 plus attorney fees.

• Garcia v. Mazda Motor of America, Inc. , 2004 WI 93; 273 Wis. 2d 612, 682 N.W.2d 365 (2004 Supreme Court Decision)

  Ms. Garcia purchased a 2001 Mazda Tribute. Transmission problems appeared shortly thereafter and eventually Ms. Garcia filed her own notice with Mazda requesting a replacement vehicle under the Wisconsin Lemon Law. Mazda failed to provide a replacement vehicle to Ms. Garcia within the time frame provided by the Wisconsin Lemon Law, as well as imposed conditions not required under the Lemon Law in order for her to obtain a replacement vehicle. Ms. Garcia sought our assistance in filing suit against Mazda. Mazda was successful in both the Circuit Court and Court of Appeals arguing that Ms. Garcia's notice was insufficient to trigger the Lemon Law because she did not properly offer to transfer title of her lemon vehicle. The Wisconsin Supreme Court, however, reversed the lower Court's rulings, concluding that Ms. Garcia's notice was sufficient and it remanded the case back to the circuit court. The case was eventually settled with a very favorable outcome to Ms. Garcia (she received twice the purchase price of her vehicle), with Mazda paying her attorney fees.

• Fry v. DaimlerChrysler Corporation, Case No. 03-CV-1232 (2005 Jury Decision)

  Mr. Fry experienced a drive train noise with the 2002 Jeep Grand Cherokee he purchased for $29,637. DaimlerChrysler denied his lemon law claim and took the matter to trial. The jury found in favor of Mr. Fry, deeming his vehicle a lemon. DaimlerChrysler paid Mr. Fry over $73,000, plus attorney fees.
  

• Schug v. Audi of America, Inc., Case No. 03-CV-1787 (2004 Jury Decision)

  Mr. Schug purchased a 2002 Audi TT Coupe quattro for $38,975. After his vehicle was in for service for over 30 days within the first year after purchase for numerous problems, Mr. Schug requested that Audi provide him with a comparable vehicle. Audi agreed, but refused to provide a vehicle that included the “premium package” (upgraded tires and wheels), an option that our client paid $1,450 for on his lemon vehicle. The only issue at trial was whether or not the proposed replacement vehicle was truly comparable to his lemon vehicle. The jury did not believe that it was; Mr. Schug recovered over $109,000, plus attorney fees.
  

• MacKay v. Ford Motor Company, Case No. 03-CV-1947 (2005 Jury Decision)

  Mr. MacKay experienced an engine surging/idling condition with his leased 2002 Ford Explorer. Ford took the case to trial, arguing that Mr. MacKay was stepping on the accelerator and brake at the same time, causing the surging conditions. Ultimately, the jury did not buy Ford’s argument and decided that Mr. MacKay’s vehicle was indeed a lemon. Ford ended up having to pay Mr. MacKay over $47,000, plus his attorney fees (Mr. MacKay had only paid $17,000 under the terms of his lease).
  

• Dieter v. Chrysler Corporation, 2000 WI 45, 234 Wis. 2d 670, 610 N.W.2d 832 (2000 Supreme Court Decision)
  
  The Dieters purchased a 1996 Dodge Ram Pick-up Truck with paint problems. Chrysler was successful in getting the trial court to dismiss the consumers' case on a legal issue (because it was believed that the paint problems resulted from the installation of accessories by the dealer); the Wisconsin Court of Appeals agreed (because the Dieters knew about the paint problems at the time of purchase). However, the Wisconsin Supreme Court unanimously reversed the decision and allowed the consumers to proceed with their case. Thereafter, Chrysler settled the case upon favorable terms, paying damages to the Dieters, as well as paying the Dieters' attorney fees.

• Kiss v. General Motors Corporation, 2001 WI App 122, 246 Wis. 2d 364, 630 N.W.2d 742 (2001 Court of Appeals Decision)
  
  Mr. Kiss purchased a 1997 GMC Sierra 3500 Heavy Duty tow truck. The vehicle developed performance problems with the vehicle itself (as opposed to the tow package). General Motors offered Mr. Kiss a new vehicle, but insisted upon transferring his old tow package onto the new vehicle. Mr. Kiss wanted a new tow package and filed suit. The trial court dismissed his case, because it felt that Mr. Kiss was not entitled to a new tow package. However, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals reversed, holding that Mr. Kiss was entitled to a new tow truck with a new tow package. Thereafter, General Motors settled the case upon favorable terms, paying damages to Mr. Kiss, as well as paying Mr. Kiss's attorney fees.
  

• Herzberg v. Ford Motor Company, 2001 WI App 65, 242 Wis. 2d 316, 626 N.W.2d 67 (2001 Court of Appeals Decision)
  
  The Herzbergs purchased a 1998 Mercury Mystique. They proceeded with a lemon law claim against Ford. Ford agreed to a refund, but required information about the condition of the vehicle before it would provide the refund. The Herzbergs refused, and filed suit. The trial court determined that Ford had violated the Wisconsin Lemon Law by making the refund conditional, and awarded the Herzbergs $34,416.28, twice the amount of the purchase price, plus attorney fees. Ford appealed. The Wisconsin Court of Appeals affirmed the trial Court decision.
  

• Chariton v. Saturn Corporation, 2000 WI App 148; 238 Wis. 2d 27, 615 N.W.2d 209 (2000 Court of Appeals Decision)
  
  Ms. Chariton purchased a 1996 Saturn vehicle, that turned out to be problematic. She proceeded with a lemon law claim against Saturn. Saturn agreed to provide Ms. Chariton with a refund, but required that she sign a release as a condition of her receiving such refund. Ms. Chariton refused, and filed suit. The trial court determined that Saturn had violated the Wisconsin Lemon Law by failing to provide Ms. Chariton with her refund within the statutorily required 30 day period. Saturn appealed. The Wisconsin Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court that Saturn had failed to provide Ms. Chariton with her refund in a timely manner, and determined that it could not require her to sign a release as a condition. Ms. Chariton collected double damages (double her purchase price), plus attorney fees.

• Riley v. Ford Motor Company, Case No. 99-CV-394 (2001 Jury Decision)
  
  Mr. Riley experienced various problems with his 1998 Lincoln Town Car, including a pulling problem. Ford initially refused to provide Mr. Riley with lemon law relief, but later reconsidered and belatedly tried to provide him with some money back. Mr. Riley had leased the vehicle for 24 months, paying approximately $15,777.39 under the terms of his lease. After a favorable jury verdict, Mr. Riley collected $38,056.32, plus attorney fees.

Sampling of Settlements:

The vast majority of the well over 1000 claims which we have brought on behalf of Wisconsin consumers since 1990 have been settled to our clients' overwhelming satisfaction. A few examples of such settlements include:

• Our client sought a comparable vehicle after his 2007 BMW 335 was in for service for over 50 days within the first year of ownership. BMW did not comply under the Wisconsin Lemon Law and our client filed suit. The case was settled for $67,000.00, plus attorney fees (original price of vehicle - $44,800).
  
  
• Our client purchased a 2006 International SBA dump truck for its trucking business. The day after purchase, our client noticed shifting problems. The truck would eventually spend over 30 days at the dealer for service within the first year. When International did not respond to our client’s request for a replacement vehicle, suit was filed. Our client ultimately recovered $153,500, plus attorney fees (original price of vehicle - $91,000).
  
  
• Within the first 8 months of ownership, our client’s 2007 Ducati motorcycle was at an authorized Ducati dealer for over 115 days for stalling concerns. Our client sent a notice to Ducati requesting that they replace the vehicle under the Lemon Law. Ducati failed to comply so our client filed suit. The matter was resolved with our client receiving $30,500, plus attorney fees (original price of motorcycle - $15,700.00).
  
  
• Despite making their vehicle available 5 times within the first year of ownership for cruise control problems with their 2006 Jeep Grand Cherokee, Chrysler informed our clients that “it was not appropriate to offer a repurchase”. A lawsuit was filed against Chrysler and the case was settled for $43,000, plus attorney fees (original price of vehicle - $29,900).
  
  
• Our client purchased a 2007 Kia Sportage. Within a few months after purchase, our client experienced serious problems with her brakes. The vehicle was at a Kia dealership well over 30 days within the first year of ownership. Our client, on her own, sent a demand to Kia requesting that they provide her with a comparable vehicle. Kia did not comply, so she got our office involved. We were able to recover $35,500 for our client, plus attorney fees (original price of vehicle - $18,000).
  
  
• Our clients sought a replacement vehicle from Chrysler for their 2007 Chrysler Pacifica after it was in for service numerous times for transmission problems within the first year of ownership. Chrysler responded that it was not appropriate to offer a settlement as our clients requested. Our clients then filed suit and were able to recover $41,800, plus attorney fees (original price of vehicle - $34,000).
  
  
• Our clients sought a replacement vehicle from Ford for their 2006 Ford Explorer that was in for service over 35 days within the first year of ownership. Ford responded saying “in their good faith judgment, the subject vehicle did not qualify for a repurchase or any other form of monetary compensation.” Our clients sued. They were able to recover $45,700, plus attorney fees (original price of vehicle - $36,000).
  
  
• Engine noise problems plagued a 2006 Ford F350 purchased by our client. Our client requested that Ford replace the vehicle. Ford refused saying the vehicle did not “qualify for a repurchase or any other form of monetary compensation,” so our client filed suit. Our client was able to settle the case for $58,000, plus attorney fees (original price of vehicle - $38,800).
  
  
• Our client purchased a 2007 Saturn Ion. Within the first 90 days of ownership, the vehicle was at a Saturn dealer 33 days for clutch repairs. Our client sought a replacement vehicle from Saturn Corporation under the Lemon Law. Saturn never responded to our office so our client filed suit. He recovered $26,500, plus attorney fees (original price of vehicle - $14,500).
  
  
• Our clients purchased a 2006 Ford F150. They soon experienced a bad vibration and problems with the transmission, among other things. Despite having their vehicle in for service for 50 days within the first year of ownership, Ford determined that the vehicle did not qualify for a repurchase or any other form of monetary compensation. Our clients filed suit and ultimately recovered over $74,000, plus attorney fees (original price of vehicle - $51,100).
  
  
• Our client purchased a 2005 GMC 5500 Vulcan for his business. Within months after purchase, the truck experienced numerous engine problems. Our client filed a notice with General Motors requesting a buy back. General Motors failed to comply. A lawsuit was filed. The case was eventually settled for $98,000, plus attorney fees (original price of vehicle - $61,700).
  
  
• Our client purchased a 2004 Suzuki Forenza. Within the first year of ownership, she had her vehicle in for service for over 50 days. Our client sent a notice to Suzuki requesting that they repurchase the vehicle. Suzuki responded that they were unable to fulfill her request for assistance. A lawsuit suit was then filed. The case was settled for $35,800, plus attorney fees (original price of vehicle - $13,900.00).
  
  
• Our client experienced serious engine problems with her 2005 Volkswagen Jetta. In fact, the vehicle was at the dealer for over 70 days within the first year of ownership. Although Volkswagen did offer our client a replacement vehicle pursuant to her notice, they did not offer her a vehicle that had the same features/options that were on her lemon vehicle. Therefore, our client filed suit and was able to recover $36,000, plus attorney fees (Original price of vehicle - $22,100).
  
  
• Our client experienced transmission problems immediately upon taking delivery of his 2004 Royal Enfield Bullet motorcycle. After the dealer had the motorcycle for 60 days, our client requested a refund. The manufacturer did not respond so a lawsuit was filed. He was able to settle the case for $8,500, plus attorney fees (original cost of motorcycle - $4,200).
  
  
• Our client discovered problems with the speedometer and instrument cluster of her 2005 Dodge Caravan less than 6 weeks after she purchased the vehicle. After 5 visits to Chrysler dealers within the first year of ownership, our client, on her own, sent a demand to Chrysler asking them to repurchase the vehicle. Although Chrysler apologized for the problems, they refused to replace the vehicle and instead offered to repair the vehicle within the terms of her warranty. Another year and half went by in which our client continued to have numerous visits to the dealer for the same problem. Again on her own, our client sent a demand to Chrysler requesting a replacement vehicle. Chrysler once again refused. Our office got involved and filed suit. In less than 4 months, the matter was settled with our client recovering over $53,000 (original price of vehicle - $24,000).
  
  
• Our client purchased a 2007 Dodge Ram. Within the first year of ownership, our client had his truck in for service 7 times for transmission concerns. Our client requested a replacement vehicle from Chrysler under the Lemon Law. Chrysler responded stating that “it was not appropriate to offer a replacement vehicle” as requested, so our office filed suit. Within 3 months we were able to resolve the matter for almost $50,000 to our client, plus attorney fees (original price of vehicle - $34,600.00).