Facts

Plaintiff Paul Scott claimed that his 2003 Toyota Tacoma suffered major engine damage/failure as a result of an oil leak. He brought the vehicle to Toyota of San Luis Obispo, which concluded that the oil leak was caused by an improperly installed oil filter. Warranty coverage was denied after the dealer consulted with a Toyota district manager.

The car was taken to Roseville Toyota. Roseville found that three of the engine cylinders were damaged, causing low compression. They also denied warranty repairs, after the plaintiff refused to sign a repair authorization for further engine diagnosis. The plaintiff disputed the need for a repair authorization with the dealer for another nine months, before the vehicle was finally towed back to his house where it sat un-driveable for another year and a half.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
The plaintiff contended that the engine oil leak was the result of defective piston rings/cylinders, which caused excessive crank case pressure. According to plaintiff's expert, this pressure allegedly caused oil to leak from a valve cover, which resulted in a lack of lubrication and damage to the crankshaft bearings. The plaintiff denied that the oil loss came from the oil filter based on the oil residue in the engine compartment.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Toyota claimed that the damage to plaintiff's engine was caused by an oil leak from an improperly installed oil filter, which resulted in a lack of lubrication and damage to internal engine components. The defendant's expert theorized that the oil filter had either not been tightened or that a gasket from an old oil filter had been left on during an oil change, causing a "double gasket" condition. As a result, Toyota contended that there was no defect in the materials or workmanship that was covered under its warranty.

Toyota further claimed that Roseville appropriately refused work on the truck because the plaintiff failed to give the requisite repair authorization.

Settlement Discussions

Plaintiff demanded restitution in the amount of $63,929 plus attorney fees and costs. Toyota offered $15,000 per C.C.P. Section 998.

Damages

The plaintiff claimed that he was without use of the vehicle for over two and a half years. The plaintiff sought restitution and incidental damages totaling $63,929, plus attorney fees and costs.

Result

Defense verdict.

Other Information

A mediation was held before Richard Niederberg on Feb. 24, 2009. Toyota submitted a cost bill for $8,366, which has been reduced to a judgment.

Deliberation

30 minutes

Poll

12-0