Facts

On Aug. 2, 2004, plaintiff Eugene Genchev bought a 2004 Freightliner CL120 vehicle from a distributor of freightliners. The vehicle was the tractor portion of a tractor-trailer made to transport heavy cargo over long distances.

The plaintiff claimed that Freightliner LLC did not inform him that his purchase was previously subject to recall because of extreme transmission non-conformity. The recall occurred in May 2004 and was called the Freightliner Recall Campaign FL420A. Plaintiff stated he would not have made the purchase if he had been so informed and further stated that defendant did not complete recall work until May 24, 2005.

The plaintiff alleged that defendant was liable for vehicle damage caused by failure to perform work in a timely manner and that such reduced the value of his purchase. Plaintiff stated that this failure also resulted in various nonconformities, which included clutch repair and replacement in June 2005.

According to Genchev, on Dec. 5, 2003, defendant made a breakdown report, noting that the vehicle was subject to nonconformities. The check engine light was on and the cab also had an air leak. The defendant also noted that the vehicle's ECM was configured for a fire truck and that it did not possess the correct software to remedy the nonconformity. The 2004 Freightliner also suffered from an extreme leaning nonconformity, causing the vehicle to lean in a manner that resisted leveling out.

In Ja. 2004, the vehicle was transported to an authorized repair shop to correct the leaning nonconformity. Defendant said that it would not agree to the fact of nonconformity.

On Feb. 24, 2005, the vehicle was transported again to an authorized repair shop to correct the problem, which defendant again attempted to fix. The 2004 Freightliner was out of commission for a notable period of time.

On March 3, 2005, plaintiff bought a 2005 Freightliner FLD from a different Freightliner distributor.

In June 2005, plaintiff was notified of a recall pertaining to the engine. On June 6, 2005, plaintiff took his new vehicle to a repair shop. Defendant claimed to have fixed the problem.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
The plaintiff claimed that defendant committed breach of contract, breach of warranty, violation of Consumer Code, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, negligence, and unjust enrichment.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
The defendant alleged that there was no duty of disclosure on its part regarding pre-purchase repairs because the defendant did not actually sell the vehicle. In addition, defendant alleged that the provisions of the warranty were upheld, and that plaintiff was seeking to recoup costs in relation to repairs that were not covered by the warranty.

Damages

The plaintiff claimed he was entitled to $100,089 for the purchase price of the 2004 Freightliner, $111,947 for the purchase price of the 2005 Freightliner, $15,013 in reduced value of the 2004 Freightliner, $5,597 for the reduced value of the 2005 Freightliner in the event that plaintiff had to retain the vehicles, $15,253 for repairs not paid by defendant for a 2006 Freightliner, and $37,727 for loss of use of the Freightliners.

Result

A verdict amounting to $38,909 was reached with $12,500 in diminished value and $29,409 in other damages. The jury concluded that Freightliner LLC was 100 percent liable for the harm that occurred. The jury did not place liability on the dealer Albuquerque Freightliner.

Other Information

FILING DATE: Oct. 11, 2005 (removed to United States District Court on Nov. 4, 2005).