Find Court Cases > Go Back to List > Alvarez v. American Isuzu Motors

Alvarez v. American Isuzu Motors

Case Date: 03/30/2001
Court: 1st District Appellate
Docket No: 1-00-0869 Rel

SIXTH DIVISION

March 30, 2001

 

No. 1-00-0869


MARIAN ALVAREZ,

                                  Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

AMERICAN ISUZU MOTORS,

                                  Defendant-Appellee.

 )
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)		 Appeal from the
Circuit Court of
Cook County



Honorable
Robert Gordon,
Judge Presiding.

JUSTICE GALLAGHER delivered the opinion of the court:

Plaintiff Marian Alvarez appeals from an order of the trial court settingaside a jury verdict in plaintiff's favor on her breach of implied warranty ofmerchantability claim against defendant American Isuzu Motors. Plaintiff argueson appeal that the trial court erred in granting defendant's motion for judgmentnotwithstanding the verdict. We affirm.

On June 13, 1996, plaintiff purchased a 1996 Isuzu Rodeo automobile fromSchaumburg Isuzu, an authorized dealer of automobiles manufactured and exportedto the United States by Isuzu Motors of America and distributed by defendant.The price of the Rodeo, including taxes and title charges, was $26,326.35.Defendant's new vehicle limited warranty, as stated in the warranty bookletaccompanying the Rodeo, covered the car for 36 months or 50,000 miles, whichevercame sooner, and warranted that the car would be free of defects in materialsand workmanship during the warranty period. Any Isuzu dealer would make therepairs necessary to correct defects covered by the warranty and the buyershould allow a reasonable time for such repairs to be made. The warrantyspecifically excluded coverage for defects or malfunctions occurring due to thebuyer's misuse of the car or negligence in maintaining it. Additional warrantiescovered the "Power Train" and the exterior finish of the car. TheRodeo had approximately 200 miles on it when plaintiff bought the car.

Six weeks after the purchase, plaintiff began experiencing difficulties withthe car. Thereafter followed a series of return visits to Schaumburg Isuzu for amyriad of problems. The litany of plaintiff's complaints and the concomitantrepairs by Schaumburg Isuzu is as follows:

Date

Problem(s)

Repair(s)

July 24, 1996

Check Engine light on

Repaired oxygen sensor

Antifreeze leak

Replaced radiator hose

August 29, 1996

Scraping sound on right side of car

Repaired right front brake caliper; cleaned and lubed brake pads

November 11, 1996

Radio inoperable

Radio functioned normally; no problem found

Check Engine light on

Engine misfire caused light on; no problem found

Oil change

Oil changed

January 22, 1997

Transmission shifting prematurely and jerking (car had 9,000 miles)

Parts ordered: transmission inhibitor switch and radiator (current one was leaking)

January 27, 1997

Above parts installed

January 29, 1997

Dome light inoperable

Door switch replaced (Exhaust studs replaced - unrelated to problem)

Transmission shifting too soon

Transmission replaced

February 4, 1997

Vehicle jerks while stopping and accelerating and bangs on up shift

Transmission gasket and band control solenoid replaced (Technician noted that transmission might need to be replaced )

February 10, 1997

Transmission shifting too early and slamming into gear when downshifting

Transmission replaced

February 12, 1997

Transmission shifting hard and intermittently jerking

(While diagnosing problem, Rodeo out of service for 10 days; rental provided to plaintiff at no cost)

February 21, 1997

(Car returned to plaintiff)

Mode select switch replaced

March 4, 1997

Steering wheel shakes at speeds over 40 m.p.h.

Studs replaced and tires rotated

March 8, 1997

Steering wheel shakes at speeds over 40 m.p.h.

Studs replaced and tires balanced

February 24, 1998

Steering wheel shakes

Technician recommended rotating tires

Key sticking in ignition

Part ordered

March 10, 1998

Key problem repaired

On March 18, 1997, plaintiff filed a two-count complaint against defendant.That complaint and an amended complaint were dismissed. On July 14, 1997,plaintiff filed a three-count second amended complaint alleging (I) breach ofwritten warranty under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (15 U.S.C.