Zine v. Chrysler Corp.
| Decision Date | 01 October 1999 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 209281.,Docket No. 199594 |
| Citation | 600 N.W.2d 384,236 Mich. App. 261 |
| Parties | Christopher ZINE, Plaintiff-Appellee/Cross-Appellant, v. CHRYSLER CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant/Cross-Appellee. T. Leonard Terry and Lois Terry Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Chrysler Corporation, Defendant-Appellee |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Dani K. Libland, Birmingham, and Judith A. Curtis, Detroit, for the plaintiffs.
Bodman, Longley & Dahling LLP (by Thomas J. Tallerico and Paul R. Bernard), Detroit, for the defendant.
Before: HOOD, P.J., and HOLBROOK, JR., and WHITBECK, JJ.
In Docket No. 199594, defendant Chrysler Corporation appeals by delayed leave granted, challenging a trial court order that denied its motion for summary disposition of plaintiff Christopher Zine's claim alleging a violation of the Michigan Consumer Protection Act (MCPA), M.C.L. § 445.901 et seq.; MSA 19.418(1) et seq. Zine cross appeals, challenging the trial court's denial of his motion for class certification. In Docket No. 209281, plaintiffs T. Leonard Terry and Lois Terry appeal by leave granted a trial court order denying their motion for class certification. We reverse in part, affirm in part, and remand.
Zine bought a new Dodge truck in May 1994. The Terrys bought a new Plymouth minivan in July 1995. Purchasers of an automobile in some states are entitled to receive information about their rights under their state's "lemon law." However, other states do not require the manufacturer to provide such information. Chrysler provides one booklet in each vehicle that contains information relevant to the lemon laws of those states that require the manufacturer to provide such information. It does not contain similar information relevant to the lemon laws of other states, such as Michigan, that do not require the manufacturer to provide such information.1
The booklet also contained a notice to all consumers, regardless of location. It provided in pertinent part:
After detailing the steps that should be followed to resolve a vehicle problem,2 the notice goes on to state:
In February 1996, Zine filed a proposed class action, claiming that the various information documents—and in particular the lemon law booklet—that Chrysler supplied to its dealers for distribution to purchasers of new cars was misleading in that it "caused the probability that Plaintiffs would believe that the state of Michigan does not have a `lemon law," and that the Chrysler Arbitration Board was or is their only remedy for defective Chrysler vehicles." As a result, according to the complaint, Chrysler "systematically refused to provide a repurchase or replacement ... for defective vehicles," "Plaintiffs were led to forego seeking remedies pursuant to Michigan's Lemon Law," and "Plaintiffs were led to believe notice of the defect to the manufacturer was not a prerequisite to seeking redress." Zine alleged that such conduct constituted a violation of the MCPA.
In May 1996, the Terrys filed suit against Chrysler, claiming that their new car was defective and sought damages for breach of warranty (count I), breach of good faith (count III), violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C.2301 et seq. (count IV), and violation of the MCPA (count VII). They also sought to revoke their acceptance of the vehicle and to compel Chrysler to take it back and refund the purchase price (count II). Count VII included the same allegations pleaded by Zine relative to the lemon law.3 The Terry case was assigned to the same trial court to which the Zine case was assigned, and the Terrys subsequently moved to consolidate their case with the Zine case. The trial court granted that motion in early October 1996.
In the meantime, in late June 1996, Chrysler filed a motion for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10) in the Zine case, asserting that the MCPA was inapplicable because Zine purchased his truck primarily for use in his business, that it was not required to provide information regarding the lemon law to Michigan car buyers and Zine received and ignored the lemon law information provided by the Secretary of State's office, that the information provided was not misleading, that any misleading information it did provide was not material to the sale of the vehicle because it related solely to the remedies available after sale, and that a claim under the MCPA must be predicated on affirmative representations rather than omissions. Zine responded that he purchased the truck primarily for personal use but sometimes used it for work, that Chrysler voluntarily undertook an obligation to provide information and therefore had to provide accurate information, that the information was misleading because it did not disclose information about Michigan's lemon law, that the documents were material because they were supplied at the time he took possession of the vehicle, and that a claim under the MCPA can be predicated on omissions of fact as well as misrepresentations of fact.
In late June 1996, Zine filed a motion for class certification.4 Zine asserted that the class included over 522,600 persons, making joinder impracticable, that the case involved Chrysler's common scheme of omissions and representations by way of the documents distributed to all purchasers and thus the claims and defenses would be the same, that he was a qualified representative for the class, and that it was best to maintain the action as a class action because each purchaser received the same information and was misled about the purchaser's rights under Michigan law. Chrysler responded that Zine could not represent the class because he could not maintain an action on his own behalf for the reasons specified in Chrysler's motion for summary disposition and he was not a suitable representative for the class in light of his animosity toward the company and his limited finances, that individual issues dominated over common ones in that different documents were provided for different model years and would require separate minitrials for each class member's claim and damages, which would make a class action unmanageable.
The trial court heard both motions in August 1996. The trial court rejected Chrysler's claim that the MCPA did not apply because the evidence showed that, while Zine used his truck primarily for business, it was his only vehicle and was used for personal reasons as well. The trial court also rejected Chrysler's argument that any representations were not material to the sale because they related to remedies after the sale, they did not induce Zine to buy the truck, and Zine would have bought the truck with or without them. Finally, the trial court rejected Chrysler's argument that Zine could not have reasonably relied on any omissions because he received and ignored the lemon law information provided by the Secretary of State's office. It stated:
This has been your strongest argument, I have to admit that. However, I have to keep focusing on the fact that once Chrysler accepts the responsibility for disseminating this material, I think under the Michigan Consumer Protection Act there is a cause of action if you do it in a misleading or deceptive manner and that's the allegation of the Plaintiff here. I have to take that in a light most favorable to them. If there are any issues of material fact, which I think there are when we talk about "reasonable people" as a matter of law, I can't say that as a matter of law ... that the Plaintiff's actions here were unreasonable.
The trial court also denied Zine's motion for class certification, stating:
I agree with the Defendant here. I don't find that, one, that this person is representative of all the members of this potential class. I don't find that it's so numerous that it requires that all of them be joined together, or that the awards would be similar. I think I would end up with a lot of little mini-trials here and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jones v. Lubrizol Advanced Materials, Inc.
...Mich. 2016). But "the proper focus of the MCPA is the use to which goods or services are put." Id. (citing Zine v. Chrysler Corp. , 236 Mich.App. 261, 600 N.W.2d 384, 393–94 (1999) ). Based on the allegations in the consolidated amended complaint, Ms. Martin has stated a claim that she used......
-
In re Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. Tires Products
...frustration of expectations brought about through reliance on defendant's false representations. The court in Zine v. Chrysler Corp., 236 Mich.App. 261, 600 N.W.2d 384, 398 (1999), looked at the materiality of the defendant's representation in order to determine whether the plaintiff had an......
-
Safeco Ins. Co. of America v. Cpi Plastics Group
...a private cause of action to "a person who suffers loss as a result of a violation of this act ...." CPI cites Zine v. Chrysler Corp., 236 Mich.App. 261, 600 N.W.2d 384 (1999) for the proposition that the intent of the act is "to protect consumers in their purchases of goods which are prima......
-
In re Gen. Motors LLC
...use of unfair, unconscionable, or deceptive methods, acts, or practices in the conduct of trade or commerce." Zine v. Chrysler Corp. , 236 Mich.App. 261, 600 N.W.2d 384, 392 (1999) ; see also Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.903(1). To the extent relevant here, the MCPA prohibits, inter alia , (1) re......
-
Federal Law of Unfair Competition
...Club, 496 N.E.2d 785, 790 (Ind. App. 1986), vacated in part on other grounds, 512 N.E.2d 156 (Ind. 1987); Zine v. Chrysler Corp., 600 N.W.2d 384, 398 (Mich. App. 1999) (citing with approval Mayhall v. A.H. Pond Co., 341 N.W.2d 268, 270 (Mich. App. 1983)). 226. See, e.g., State ex rel. Babbi......