Facts

On Dec. 15, 2006, plaintiff Raffi Hagopian purchased a 2007 Toyota Camry from Power Toyota of Irvine. He claimed that he immediately began experiencing problems with the vehicle's alignment, including a pulling condition to the right. He brought the vehicle to the dealer for repairs on five occasions, but claimed that they were unable to correct the condition. A factory technical specialist from Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A. Inc. (TMS) inspected the vehicle and found that it was operating within factory specifications. Further warranty work was denied.

The plaintiff then hired legal counsel, who requested further repair of the vehicle. Another inspection was performed by TMS and again, the vehicle was found to be performing within specifications.

The plaintiff then filed suit against TMS, Power Toyota of Irvine and Toyota of Orange Inc., alleging causes of action for breach of implied warranty (Song-Beverly Act), breach of express and implied warranties (Magnuson-Moss), breach of express warranty (Uniform Commercial Code), fraud, negligent misrepresentation and unfair business practices.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
The plaintiff contended that the vehicle had an abnormal pulling condition to the right, which constituted a serious safety concern. At trial, the plaintiff's wife, the primary driver, testified that the condition prevented her from driving the vehicle safely with her children and almost resulted in a serious accident with an 18-wheel tractor-trailer.

The plaintiff further contended that the defendants had engaged in unfair business practices and fraudulently represented the terms of its warranty. Moreover, the plaintiff claimed that TMS had improper procedures in place to investigate warranty claims.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
The defendants contended that plaintiff's vehicle was operating within specifications and that there was not an abnormal pulling condition with the vehicle. The defendants also disputed all claims of fraud and that it maintained improper claims handling procedures.

Settlement Discussions

Prior to trial, the plaintiff demanded $195,000 from all three defendants. The defendants served a C.C.P. Section 998 offer to compromise for $5,000 and replacement of the wheels/tires. Before trial, the plaintiff made a demand of $70,000. On the fourth day of trial, the demand was reduced to $5,000.

Damages

The plaintiff requested restitution, a civil penalty, punitive damages, attorney fees and costs.

Result

The case settled for $2,500 on the fourth day of trial.

Length

four days