Find Court Cases > Go Back to List > Jones v. Ford Motor Co.

Jones v. Ford Motor Co.

Case Date: 03/11/2004
Court: 1st District Appellate
Docket No: 1-03-1003 Rel

FOURTH DIVISION
March 11, 2004


No. 1-03-1003


 

WALTER JONES,

                       Plaintiff-Appellant,

                       v.

FORD MOTOR COMPANY and
MOTORHOMES UNLIMITED, INC.

                       Defendants-Appellees.

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

01 M1 129226

The Honorable
Robert Lopez-Cepero,
Judge Presiding.

JUSTICE GREIMAN delivered the opinion of the court:

Plaintiff, Walter Jones, appeals from the circuit court's order granting summary judgmentin favor of defendant Ford Motor Co. (Ford) on the basis that plaintiff's action was filed after thestatute of limitations period expired. Plaintiff argues on appeal that the trial court erred because itfailed to find that the statute of limitations was tolled by plaintiff's participation in arbitration withthe Dispute Settlement Board where, pursuant to the parties' warranty agreement, suchparticipation was required before plaintiff could file suit in the courts. While plaintiff raises aninteresting issue regarding the propriety of applying equitable tolling in cases where a party ismade to pursue arbitration before filing suit - which, indeed appears to be an issue of firstimpression in Illinois - we are not able to reach the merits of his argument in this case. Therefore,we affirm.

In determining the summary judgment, the trial court considered the following facts. Onor about April 18, 1997, plaintiff purchased a Ford E350 motorhome from co-defendantMotorhomes Unlimited, Inc.(1) Plaintiff took possession of the vehicle on either April 18, 1997, asalleged in his complaint; or June 11, 1997, as alleged in his response to Ford's motion forsummary judgment.(2) The record is void of any explanation for this discrepancy.

In connection with his purchase of the motorhome, plaintiff was issued a written warrantyby Ford. This warranty provides that "[a] warranty dispute must be submitted to the DisputeSettlement Board before taking action under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act." The warrantyfurther provides that the Dispute Settlement Board (DSB) is an informal, alternative, free andindependent process for resolving warranty disputes.

On June 20, 2001, plaintiff filed his complaint in the circuit court of Cook County, allegingmultiple causes of action against defendants under the federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty -Federal Trade Commission Improvement Act (Magnuson-Moss Act) (15 U.S.C.