Breach of Warranty
We represented an international motor vehicle distributor in a breach of warranty case that was tried in Gadsden, Alabama. After prevailing during the trial, we were able to reach a settlement agreement with the plaintiff to resolve the case for a nominal amount of money.
Breach of Warranty Allegations in Connection with Vehicle Condition
We served as counsel for a major motor vehicle manufacturer/distributor in a breach of warranty/consumer sales practices case that was tried to a jury in January of 2013 in Beaufort County, North Carolina. The case involved allegations of alleged fading or discoloration on multiple components on the exterior and interior of the vehicle. The jury unanimously returned a defense verdict in favor of our client.
Breach of Warranty/Lemon Law Case
We represented a major motorcycle manufacturer in a breach of warranty/lemon law case in Tulsa, Oklahoma. The case involved allegations of a purportedly defective chain on the motorcycle, which the Plaintiff contended interfered with the motorcycle’s ability to operate properly. We argued that the condition was not a defect in workmanship or materials covered by our client’s applicable warranties. Following a three-day trial, the jury returned a unanimous defense verdict in our client’s favor on all claims.
Lemon Law/Breach of Warranty Case Related To Vehicle Design
We represented an international motor vehicle distributor in a lemon law/breach of warranty case in the Stark County, Ohio Court of Common Pleas. We argued that the alleged non-conformity with the vehicle was based upon the design of the vehicle, and, accordingly, was not covered by the terms of our client’s applicable warranties. The trial court granted our Motion for Summary Judgment and dismissed the case. The court of appeals affirmed the decision.
Health Care Services Cleared of False Claims Allegations
We represented a health care services business that provided billing services to physicians groups and emergency rooms after a false claims act suit was filed alleging the company had improperly coded and overcharged government health care services, including Medicare and Medicaid, by millions of dollars. We did our own analysis of the company’s records while working closely with the U.S. attorney’s office as well as the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and found an explanation for the company’s coding and charges. As a result of our investigation no criminal charges were filed and the civil suit was not pursued.
Personal Injury/Product Liability
We represented a major motorcycle manufacturer in a personal injury product liability case in Montgomery County, Ohio. After conducting some preliminary discovery, and after arranging for an inspection of the product by expert witnesses, we were able to persuade the Plaintiff’s counsel to voluntarily dismiss the litigation.
Allegations of a Defective Vehicle
Allegations of Unintended Acceleration
Automobile Class Action Litigation
Breach of Warranty Case Involving Alleged Vehicle Defects
Breach of Warranty Dispute Involving a Vehicle
Browning v. Kia Motors America, Inc.
Campbell v. General Motors Corp.
Car Fire Case Involving a Repair Facility
Commercial Construction Dispute Relating to Payment
Fraud and Lemon Laundering
Jeffrey Williams v. American Suzuki Motor Corporation
Judy Dial v. Kia Motors America, Inc.
Lemon Law Case Relating to Vehicle Repairs
Lemon Law/Breach of Warranty
Mattlin Holdings LLC v. First City Bank, 2010 Ohio 3700 (Ohio App. 10th Dist. 2010)
Dinsmore & Shohl handled the defense on behalf of Defendants, Fifth Third Bank ("Fifth Third") and JP Morgan Chase ("Chase"). This is an important precedent for the banking industry in Ohio in that the appellate court refused to extend the discovery rule to toll the statute of limitations under O.R.C. § 1303.16(G) for a UCC conversion claim against two banks. In particular, the Appellants asserted a UCC conversion claim pursuant to O.R.C. § 1303.60 against both Fifth Third and Chase for the alleged conversion of a check in the amount of $795,486.00. Appellants’ conversion claims, however, were filed over four and one-half years after the alleged conversion by both Fifth Third and Chase. The Appellants argued, among others, that the discovery rule should toll the statute of limitations because Appellants did not discover the alleged conversion until after the statute of limitations had expired and because the Appellants had asserted fraud-based claims against other defendants, but not against Fifth Third or Chase. In response, Firth Third and Chase argued that the discovery rule does toll the statute of limitations and that even in cases where fraud-based claims are asserted, the UCC claims against other defendants cannot be coupled with such fraud-based claims for purposes of tolling the statute of limitations.
The Tenth District Court of Appeals upheld the trial court's dismissal of Fifth Third and Chase and held that the three-year statute of limitations for conversion under Section 1303.16(G) is not tolled by the discovery rule. Both the appellate court and trial court cited to and relied upon the holding of the U.S. District Court from the Northern District of Ohio in Metz v. Unizan Bank, (N.D. Ohio 2006), 416 F. Supp. 2d 568, 579. Both courts also cited to the holding in Loyd v. Huntington Nat'l Bank (N.D. Ohio 2009), 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51858.
Click HERE to view the Tenth District Court of Appeals decision.