Did you know that, under PA Lemon Law, the dealer is required to provide you with a detailed copy of the repair invoice each time you bring your vehicle in for repair? In addition, the dealer has to notify the manufacturer of the problem when you bring your car in a second time for the same problem.

Even with these requirements in place, it’s still important to keep track of the repair and maintenance history of your vehicle. It’s easy to create a spreadsheet with the dates and times you’ve taken your car in for repair or routine maintenance, and supplement that with a folder where you keep your copies of repair and maintenance invoices. If you’re not handy with a spreadsheet, a paper notebook will work just as well. To be especially thorough, also jot down the dates and times of telephone conversations with the repair facility and manufacturer. These kinds of logs will make establishing a PA Lemon Law claim that much easier.

Once upon a time, there were three Chevrolets - a 2006 Chevy HHR, a 2006 Chevy Cobalt, and a 2007 Chevy Aveo. The HHR was besieged with problems, including a water leak, a check engine light, and other electrical problems. The Cobalt had a leaky sunroof, a check engine light, a noisy supercharger, and an unsettling, constant vibration. The Aveo had a variety of electrical issues, each one more annoying than the last.

Each Chevy had a family at its wit’s end, tired of the hassles of taking its vehicle in for repair. One family lived in New York, another in Pennsylvania, and the third in Connecticut. Nevertheless, each family found its way to Lemberg & Associates in the hope that the firm would use NY Lemon Law, PA Lemon Law, and CT Lemon Law to help them get relief from Chevrolet.

Like knights in shining armor, the staff at the Lemon Law firm came to the rescue. GM offered to resolve the claim for the Chevy HHR for $1,900, but that simply wasn’t enough, and Lemberg & Associates ultimately convinced GM to pay a $4,000 settlement.

Even though the Chevy Cobalt didn’t have any problems until it had already been driven almost 17,000 miles, the legal staff charged ahead. It was a protracted battle, but a year and a half and 17,000 miles later, Chevrolet agreed to settle the family’s claim for $4,000.

In all honesty, the Chevy Aveo wasn’t really a lemon; most of this family’s problems were resolved after one repair attempt. Still, they had to take the Aveo in seven times during the first eight months after they bought it, and Lemberg & Associates felt that the family should receive some compensation. Ultimately, Chevrolet provided the family with an extended service contract and $1,500.

In the end, the three families lived happily ever after, and the Lemon Law attorneys polished their armor in preparation for the next battle.

The moral of the story? No matter what state you live in, having a Lemon Law attorney at your side will give your family a fighting chance in getting the compensation it deserves.

About 50 years ago, Cadillac became synonymous with fine quality. Throughout the last half of the 20th century, there was no greater compliment than to have your product called, “The Cadillac of….” Amana was “the Cadillac of microwaves,” and Craftsman was “the Cadillac of tools.” These days, of course, Cadillac has been knocked down a few pegs. The proof is in the number of complaints we get from consumers about their Cadillacs.

I wanted to share three of our recent successes in getting settlements for our clients who owned lemon Cadillacs. The first involved a New York Lemon Law claim for a 2007 Cadillac Escalade with a repeated check engine light. Although the vehicle was approaching 50,000 miles when our client contacted us, and the first problem was at 30,000 miles, Cadillac compensated our client $6,250 for her time and inconvenience. 

The second was a Massachusetts Lemon Law case involving a 2007 Cadillac ESV with front-end noises that began after the car had been driven about 21,000 miles. The manufacturer finally determined that the vehicle was operating as designed and did not need any further repairs. Despite this conclusion, we convinced the manufacturer to compensate our client $4,000 for his time and inconvenience.

The third success story has to do with a Pennsylvania Lemon Law problem. Our client had a 2008 Cadillac STS-V with repeated check engine light problems. Five weeks after our client contacted us, we received a response from GM offering to settle the claim for $3,500. By this time, our client had taken the Cadillac in seven times for repair, so we said, “No way.” The check engine light problem was fixed, and we were ultimately able to negotiate a $6,500 settlement for our client.

Cadillac may no longer be associated with the epitome of quality, but our Cadillac Lemon Law successes demonstrate that they can be held accountable for their vehicles’ defects.

When clients’ lemon law and breach of warranty cases settle, they often wonder what rights they have, in any, to go after the manufacturer if the problems with the vehicle persist. This issue recently came up in the Pennsylvania case of Lescanic v. General Motors Corporation.The Leskanics purchased a 2005 Pontiac Aztec on July 29, 2005, and began to experience problems with the car early in 2006. Their attorney negotiated a release with General Motors, in which they released any and all claims arising from their problems with the car in return for $4,750, except that General Motors agreed to honor the express warranty on the car during the remainder of its term.

After the release was executed, the Leskanics continued to have numerous problems requiring them to take the car in for repairs. Finally, on January 26, 2007, they filed a complaint seeking recovery under the Automobile Lemon Law. The defendant pled the release as an affirmative defense and moved for summary judgment.

The court found that the release preserved the rights under the written warranty, allowing the Leskanics to take the car in for repair repeatedly under that warranty. However, the court ruled that the agreement released all other claims arising from the car, even though the events that gave rise to the Lemon Law claim came after the release was executed, the claims arising from those events were within the scope of the release.

Legally, this appears to be right answer. If the consumer settles a claim, the manufacturer, in exchange for paying money, should be able to have a piece of mind that it will not get sued by the same consumer in the future.  Practically, however, I see an issue with it…after all, there are many situations in the law where events arise after a settlement takes place that may give rise to another claim. One way or another, this appears to be PA lemon law!

In an interesting legislative move, last Monday, the Philadelphia City Counsel approved a ‘lemon law’ bill to cover used cars.  If the bill becomes law, anyone buying a used car in the City of Philadelphia could take the vehicle to a licensed mechanic to be checked within 72 hours. If the car is judged to be not roadworthy, the new owner would have the right to have the defect fixed at the dealer’s expense or get a refund.If the dealer refused, the city could suspend or revoke his business license - even if the car was sold ‘as is.  The measure now goes to the full council for a vote, although its likely to be amended before that.

Currently, Pennsylvania’s Lemon Law applies only to new cars. And this bill would only cover the City of Philadelphia, not the whole state. But this is welcome news to thousands of Philly residents stuck with useless lemon vehicles that just don’t work!