Our clients are manufacturers, distributors and component suppliers for a variety of products, including automobiles, off-road vehicles, motorcycles, motorhomes, boats, personal watercraft, and commercial trucks. We counselour clients on compliance with their warranty obligations and related federal and state law, and defend them in cases throughout the Southeast against claims under the Federal Magnuson-Moss Act, the Uniform Commercial Code, state Lemon Laws and other consumer protection statutes.
We help clients avoid defense costs by developing and implementing strategies for resolving warranty disputes before a lawsuit is filed. When litigation cannot be prevented, our team quickly exhausts any remaining settlement possibilities and, absent an early resolution, immediately implements an aggressive and efficient defense plan targeting summary judgment or a favorable jury verdict.
Our warranty practice group has had a number of successes at arbitration and trial and has successfully litigated the Magnuson-Moss Act “right to cure” in front of judges and jurors in Florida. We were also at the forefront of an ongoing battle over whether consumers could require manufacturers to pay their attorneys’ fees incurred in Florida lemon law arbitrations.
- Conejos v. General Motors Corp., Fifth Judicial Circuit Court in and for Marion County, Florida, Case No. 02-2291-CA-G (May 2006) – The court held that the consumer failed to afford the manufacturer an opportunity to cure its alleged warranty breach and could not recover attorneys’ fees in a Magnuson-Moss Act lawsuit when she rejected both a pre-arbitration repurchase offer calculated under the lemon law, and a subsequent lemon law arbitration award. The court rejected Krohn & Moss’ argument that the consumer was justified in rejecting the repurchase offer because it failed to include attorney’s fees. Additionally, the court rejected Krohn & Moss’ claim for attorney’s fees under the lemon law and reduced the lemon law award based on the additional mileage driven by the consumer during the court action.
- Clisanchez v. General Motors Corp., Thirteenth Judicial Circuit Court in and for Hillsborough County, Florida, Case No. 03-3167 (March 2005) – The Court granted the manufacturer summary judgment because the consumer failed to afford it an opportunity to cure its alleged warranty breach when the consumer rejected a pre-suit repurchase offer calculated under the lemon law. The court rejected Krohn & Moss’ argument that the consumer was justified in rejecting the repurchase offer because it failed to include attorney’s fees.
- GM v. Sanchez, 16 So. 3d 883 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)
- Case v. GM, 19 So. 3d 1058 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)
- GM v. Bowie, 58 So. 3d 934 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011))
In addition to obtaining three published decisions in favor of our clients, our warranty team has twice successfully appeared as amicus curiae counsel on behalf of the Alliance of Automobile Motor Manufacturers on this issue.