Chevy Cruze Recalled for Engine Shield

Posted by sally on June 22nd, 2012

According to a report by Reuters, General Motors is recalling 413,418 Chevy Cruze sedans to fix a problem with the engine shield that can trap engine fluids and increase the chance of a fire. The impacted vehicles are 2011 and 2012 models made in the car manufacturer’s Lordstown, Ohio factory. Owners impacted by the recall will be mailed notifications starting on July 11.

According to GM’s press release, “Improper engine oil change procedures on these vehicles can result in the spilling or dripping of oil. If oil contacts hot engine or exhaust system surfaces, and the engine shield, the shield may ignite and burn, resulting in a possible engine compartment fire.” It also notes that vehicles with manual transmissions and completely worn clutches can result in hydraulic fluid igniting the engine shield. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration began investigating the problem in April.

Connecticut Governor Enacts Puppy Lemon Law

Posted by sally on June 11th, 2012

Connecticut Governor Dannel Malloy has signed H.B. 5409, the state’s new “puppy lemon law.” The law, which will take effect October 1, 2012, makes those who sell dogs or cats liable for up to $500 in veterinary expenses for conditions that were present at the time of sale. Moreover, it allows for penalties in instances where congenital defects are detected within the first six months after an animal is purchased.

Wisconsin Supreme Court Upholds Mercedes Lemon Law Verdict

Posted by sally on June 11th, 2012

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported that the Wisconsin Supreme Court upheld what is the largest lemon law award in the state’s history. The case revolved around a consumer who sued Mercedes-Benz for a lemon E 320 sedan. A court ruled in the consumer’s favor, but an appellate court reversed the decision. The case when to trial and the jury found in favor of the consumer, who was later awarded $482,000. After yet another appeal, the Supreme Court took the case.

According to the Journal Sentinel report, “The carmaker argued it tried to provide a refund within the 30 days allowed by the Lemon Law, but that Marquez stalled in order to trigger the double damages and attorney fees allowed if a manufacturer doesn’t meet the deadline.” The Supreme Court rejected that argument, saying that the manufacturer had the burden of proving that the consumer intentionally prevented the refund within the 30-day timeframe.