Carzlane Complaint Lawyer – $290k Verdict Against Carzlane
A Carzlane complaint by a Maryland consumer resulted in a $290,138.75 verdict obtained by Whitney, LLP after a three day jury trial against Carzlane, Inc (“Carzlane”) and Carzlane, LLC d/b/a Ron’s Automotive (“Ron’s Automotive”) in the Circuit Court for Carroll County. This blog describes the allegations made in the lawsuit filed against Carzlane, located in Hanover, Maryland, and Ron’s Automotive, located in Manchester, Maryland, and the testimony and evidence at trial, that resulted in judgment against both Carzlane and Ron’s Automotive for (1) violation of Maryland’s Consumer Protection Act and (2) Fraud. Carzlane and Ron’s Automotive noted an appeal after the verdict.
As discussed in detail below, this case was about three main allegations:
- Price Increase – Carzlane advertised their car online for a lower price than they sold it at the dealership;
- As-Is – Carzlane and Ron’s Automotive represented the used car as being As-Is when Maryland law does not allow it to be sold As-is; and
- Repairs and Safety – Our client testified he was told the vehicle had been repaired and was safe after being shown a CarFax Report disclosing prior collision damage and airbag deployment. Our expert found it was not repaired and was unsafe.
As explained in this Carzlane complaint blog below, this case is an example of a principle that consumers must understand – just because a car dealer might get you to sign a document with a higher price for the car than as advertised, or get you to sign a document agreeing the car was sold As-Is when it is not eligible to be sold As-Is, the consumer still retains their legal rights and the dealer can legally be forced to refund money, make required repairs, cancel the transaction, or do anything else required under the law.
If you make a complaint to a dealer and they tell you that “you already signed the document and agreed” – do not take that as the last word. That may only be the beginning of realizing you need to exercise your legal rights and fight back.
Whitney, LLP’s auto fraud lawyers represent consumers across Maryland with all types of car dealer problems involving new and used car dealers, including in Carzlane complaints and Ron’s Automotive complaints.
Call us now at 410 583 8000 or use our online Quick Contact Form for your Free Maryland Car Dealer Case Evaluation.
Read about some of our past car dealer cases and results, including:
- $22,465 in an arbitration award against Koons Volvo for a Consumer Protection Violation and negligent misrepresentation;
- a $57,000 judgment against AMKO Auto,
- $60,000 for illegal credit pulls by a dealer, and a
- $35,843 judgment against National Auto in Waldorf, Maryland. Of course, prior results do not guarantee future results, and all cases are different.
Watch Whitney, LLP’s YouTube Channel for more information on past case results, Maryland law and other types of cases we handle.
We represent clients with Maryland car dealer problems across Maryland, including in the areas of Baltimore, Frederick, Rockville, Gaithersburg, Bowie, Hagerstown, Annapolis, College Park, Westminster and Salisbury.
Our client testified that he and his girlfriend found the 2021 Nissan Kicks advertised online for $17,900, and that after arriving at the dealership and after taking the test drive, Carzlane’s finance manager told him that the paperwork would show a higher price because the bank needed to see certain numbers, but that he would still only pay the advertised price. Maryland does not allow new or used car dealers to use bait-and-switch pricing.
Carzlane Complaints After Used Car Purchase
On April 6, 2024, our client and his girlfriend found Carzlane’s online advertisement for a used 2021 Nissan Kicks with approximately 9,000 miles at a price of $17,900. They printed the advertisement. Our client and his girlfriend testified they brought the printed Ad with them to Carzlane’s dealership at 2747 Annapolis Rd, Hanover, MD 21076 on April 9, 2024.
They also testified that upon arrival at Carzlane’s dealership, Carzlane’s salesman confirmed the price of $17,900 for the vehicle. Then, they test-drove the vehicle. After the test drive, our client testified he asked them to open the hood, and when they did, he saw two wires hanging down by the front bumper. He testified that Carzlane agreed to fix the wires, and provided a We-Owe form agreeing to fix it.
Carzlane Buyer’s Order showing the increased price of $20,390 that the used car was sold at, which was $2,490 above the advertised price of $17,900. Maryland lawyer prohibits car dealers from engaging in false advertising.
Carzlane’s Online Advertisement Price was Increased at the Dealership
Our client and his girlfriend testified that when Carzlane’s finance manager showed him the price of the vehicle on the Buyer’s Order, the manager told him the price was going to be $20,390, which was higher than Carzlane’s online advertisement price of $17,900. Our client testified that the reason the manager gave was that Carzlane needed to show certain numbers to the bank, but that our client would still actually pay $17,900.
Our client, a first time car buyer, testified he believed the representation. Whitney, LLP’s auto fraud lawyers have found that many new and used Maryland car dealers provide a variety of excuses and explanation while attempting to engage in illegal and deceptive practices.
Both Maryland law and Maryland administrative regulations specifically prohibit licensed car dealers from engaging in false, deceptive, or misleading advertising.
Whitney, LLP’s auto fraud lawyers have successfully filed many lawsuits and arbitrations against Maryland car dealers who engage in deceptive advertising and bait-and-switch pricing. Although illegal, bait-and-switch pricing and charging illegal fees are common practices of many Maryland new and used car dealers.
Even though Carzlane had our client sign the CarFax showing prior damage, our client testified that he asked if the car had been repaired, and was safe, and that Carzlane’s salesperson told him yes. However, our expert inspected the vehicle multiple times and provided his opinion that the used car had not been repaired correctly after the collision and was not safe.
Carzlane CarFax showing Prior Collision and Prior Airbag Deployment
After the test drive, Carzlane presented our client and his girlfriend with a CarFax. The CarFax disclosed the vehicle had a reported 2021 front-end collision and an airbag deployment. Carzlane asked both our client and his girlfriend to sign the CarFax multiple times, including next to the collision and airbag deployment, which they did.
Our client and his girlfriend both testified that he asked Carzlane’s salesman whether the vehicle had been repaired and if it was safe, and that the salesman answered Yes. Our client testified he relied on those representations and moved forward with his purchase based on that representation.
Just because a Maryland car dealer sells a used car As-Is does not mean the car is legally an As-Is vehicle. In Maryland, if a used car is not at least six model years old and has at least 60,000 miles, it cannot be sold As-Is, and the dealer is still responsible for repairs necessary under the implied warranty of merchantability.
Carzlane Complaint – Car Sold As-Is But Car Was Not Eligible to be Sold As-Is
In Maryland, cars may only be sold As-Is when they are at least six model-years old and have at least 60,000 miles. Here, the 2021 Nissan Kicks sold by Carzlane and Ron’s Automotive with approximately 9,000 miles was not eligible to be sold As-Is, but Carzlane and Ron’s Automotive provided documents representing the vehicle was being sold As-Is, and had our client sign those documents.
Again, it is critical to understand that just because a car dealer can get their customer to sign a document, if that document involves a violation of Maryland law or federal law, the customer retains their legal rights and in legal proceedings the document will likely be determined to be unenforceable.
When a Car in Maryland is sold As-Is, the Car is Sold without the Implied Warranty of Merchantability.
The implied warranty of merchantability simply means a product must be “merchantable,” which means it must:
- Pass without objection in the trade under the contract description
- Be fit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are used
- Be of fair average quality within the description
- Run of even kind, quality, and quantity within each unit
- Be adequately contained, packaged, and labeled
- Conform to any promises or statements on the label
For a used car, this means the vehicle must be minimally roadworthy and functional for basic transportation purposes. This does not mean perfect, but means the used car has to be able to be used for normal use.
Whitney, LLP’s auto fraud lawyers have experience handling cases involving Maryland used car dealers illegally selling cars As-Is in order to avoid responsibility for making repairs to defective vehicles. These dealers cannot hide behind illegal misrepresentations.
Maryland provides multiple laws, depending on the facts of the situation, under which a contract can be cancelled. Some of those rights are unwaivable even if a dealer convinces a customer to sign a document stating otherwise.
Carzlane Told Him Financing Was Not Approved and To Come Back to Sign More Documents
On April 16, 2024, Carzlane’s finance manager texted our client and asked him to come back and sign another contract due to financing not being approved. What that means is that this car sale was a Conditional Delivery, commonly known as a Spot Delivery, and which legally gave our client the right to cancel the transaction. Read Whitney, LLP’s blog about Maryland Spot Delivery and your legal rights here.
However, Carzlane gave our Client a “No Cooling Off” document. Our client testified that he understood from the No Cooling Off document that he had no right to cancel the transaction. However, Maryland provides multiple laws, depending on the facts of the situation, under which a contract can be cancelled. Some of those rights are unwaivable.
On this second visit to the dealership, the contract identified Ron’s Automotive as the seller, although the sale again took place at Carzlane’s dealership. During the trial and in sworn testimony, the representative of both Carzlane and Ron’s Automotive testified that the two dealers share ownership and resources. We alleged on behalf of our client that Carzlane was an agent of Ron’s Automotive, making Ron’s Automotive liable for the acts and representations of Carzlane. The Jury in this case decided to hold both of them responsible.
Plaintiff’s expert witness testified that he believed the dealers knew the used car’s airbag system was not functioning when they sold it to Plaintiff because the airbag light was on at the time of the sale. This is a photo of the vehicle in question.
Unrepaired Collision Damage and Inoperable Airbag Sensor Discovered After Purchase
About a week after our client’s purchase, he asked for an inspection during a recall service at a Sheehy Nissan dealership. Sheehy Nissan found unrepaired collision damage and a damaged, inoperable airbag sensor.
Upon our client informing Carzlane, they told him to bring the vehicle back to Ron’s Automotive. Ron’s Automotive kept the vehicle for about 5 weeks.
Although Carzlane and Ron’s Automotive’s owner testified that Ron’s Automotive fixed many of the problems that Sheehy Nissan found, neither Carzlane nor Ron’s Automotive produced any receipts as evidence at trial for replacement parts or records of mechanic or technician time spent on the repairs they claimed to have performed. Our client testified he was told by a Carzlane employee that the owner would not pay for the airbag repair because it was too expensive. This is a significant allegation in our client’s Carzlane complaint and Ron’s Automotive complaint.
Plaintiff’s expert testified that when he inspected the vehicle’s airbag system a second time, he discovered the driver’s side knee airbag was missing and had not been replaced. This is a photo of the vehicle in question.
Independent Inspection for Collision Repairs and Airbag Repairs
Our client took the vehicle for an inspection to a reputable collision repair expert with over 30 years of experience in collision repair. The expert inspected the vehicle and found that no collision repairs had been performed correctly, and the vehicle was not safe to drive. Whitney, LLP’s auto fraud lawyers had that same expert testify at trial about his inspection and his findings and opinions in support of our client’s Carzlane complaint and Ron’s Automotive complaint.
Airbag System Was Not Repaired Correctly and Was Missing an Airbag
The collision repair expert also testified that the airbag system had not been repaired according to Nissan’s requirements, and that the driver’s side knee airbag had not been replaced after deployment.
At trial, the collision repair expert’s opinions included:
- The vehicle’s collision damage as disclosed on the CarFax had not been repaired;
- The vehicle had not been repaired at the time of sale from Carzlane and Ron’s Automotive to our client;
- The vehicle was not safe at the time of sale to our client;
- The vehicle’s airbag system had not been repaired at the time of sale from Carzlane to our client;
- The front wires hanging down behind the bumper were for a Front Distance Collision Sensor, and were not fixed;
- That Carzlane knew at the time of sale that the airbag system was not working because the airbag light was on at the time of sale; and
- The total repair cost including a 25% allowance for hidden damage was $23,561.85.
Carzlane and Ron’s Automotive argued at trial the car was safe because it passed the Maryland Vehicle Inspection. However, the Maryland Vehicle Inspection does not include a mandatory airbag inspection.
Maryland Vehicle Inspection Does Not Include Airbag Inspections
Carzlane and Ron’s Automotive argued at trial the car was safe because it passed the Maryland Vehicle Inspection. However, the Maryland Vehicle Inspection does not include a mandatory airbag inspection, and is only a minimum mechanical inspection that does include inspection of numerous safety components, including airbags, airbag systems and collision sensors.
Plaintiff’s expert testified that because the Maryland Vehicle Inspection does not include airbag inspection, it is critical to inspect airbags after a collision to ensure the vehicle is safe.
Carzlane Complaint and Ron’s Automotive Complaint Results in $290,138.75 Verdict
At trial, Whitney, LLP’s auto fraud lawyers successfully argued that Carzlane and Ron’s Automotive each (1) violated Maryland’s Consumer Protection Act, and (2) engaged in Fraud. At the end of the trial, judgment was entered against Carzlane and Ron’s Automotive based on the evidence and testimony at trial.
The Jury decided to award damages against Carzlane and Ron’s Automotive as follows:
- $26,376.25 compensatory damages under the Consumer Protection Act for the price increase and repair costs against both Carzlane and Ron’s Automotive;;
- $131,881.25 punitive damages against Carzlane for Fraud; and
- $131,881.25 punitive damages against Ron’s Automotive for Fraud.
Total: $290,138.75
Maryland’s Consumer Protection Act – Explained
In our client’s Carzlane complaint lawsuit and trial, Whitney, LLP’s auto fraud lawyers explained to the jury that misrepresenting the vehicle as being repaired and safe, when our expert found it was neither, was a violation of the Consumer Protection Act, as was selling the vehicle for a price higher than the advertised price.
Maryland’s Consumer Protection Act protects consumers against unfair and abusive trade practices. Read Whitney, LLP’s blog on the Consumer Protection Act for more information.
The following are some of the unfair, abusive or deceptive trade practices prohibited in Maryland:
- False, falsely disparaging, or misleading oral or written statement, visual description, or other representation of any kind which has the capacity, tendency, or effect of deceiving or misleading consumers
- Representation that consumer goods have a sponsorship, approval, accessory, characteristic, ingredient, use, benefit, or quantity which they do not have
- Representation that the merchant has a sponsorship, approval, status, affiliation, or connection which the merchant does not have
- Representation that consumer goods are of a particular standard, quality, grade, style, or model which they are not
- Advertising or offering goods without intent to sell them as advertised
- Advertising goods with intent to sell them at a higher price than advertised
- Failure to state a material fact if the failure deceives or tends to deceive
- Deception, fraud, false pretense, false premise, misrepresentation, or knowing concealment, suppression, or omission of any material fact.
Maryland new and used car dealers are required to follow the Consumer Protection Act. Maryland car dealers can be held responsible for misrepresentations and omissions made to consumers in connection with the sale of vehicles.
Whitney, LLP’s Maryland auto fraud lawyers have extensive experience holding Maryland car dealers accountable for misrepresentations and abusive business practices against retail car buyers.
Fraud by Car Dealers
In this case, the jury assessed arguments made as to Carzlane and Ron’s Automotive knowledge and intent, and decided that, based on the facts and evidence of the case, they had engaged in fraud against Whitney, LLP’s client.
Fraud is easy to allege but can be difficult to prove. The following elements must be proven to show fraud occurred:
- False Representation – The defendant made a false statement of fact
- Knowledge of Falsity – The defendant knew the statement was false, or made it with reckless disregard for its truth or falsity
- Intent to Deceive – The defendant made the statement with the intent to induce the plaintiff to act or refrain from acting in reliance on it
- Justifiable Reliance – The plaintiff actually and justifiably relied on the false statement
- Damages – The plaintiff suffered damages proximately caused by that reliance
Daniel W. Whitney, Jr. of Whitney, LLP – $290,138.75 jury verdict for violation of Maryland’s Consumer Protection Act and Fraud against Carzlane and Ron’s Automotive in Carroll County, Maryland.
Whitney, LLP – Carzlane Complaint Lawyers
If you have a Carzlane complaint or a Ron’s Automotive Complaint, Whitney, LLP’s auto fraud lawyers may be able to help. We have successfully represented hundreds of clients in Maryland car dealer complaints against new and used car dealers across Maryland.
The car dealer problems we help our clients resolve include, but are not limited to:
- price increases,
- bait-and-switch pricing,
- stealing down payments,
- financing problems,
- illegal fees and expenses,
- selling damaged, dangerous and unrepaired vehicles,
- failing to disclose important information,
- forging customer’s signature on contracts, and
- resolving title and registration problems.
We have successfully helped hundreds of Maryland consumers resolve their car dealer problems, including cancelling transactions and recovering compensation.
Call us now at 410 583 8000 or use our online Quick Contact Form for your Free Maryland Car Dealer Case Evaluation.
CONTACT WHITNEY, LLP
Daniel W. Whitney, Jr., Esq.
Whitney, LLP
409 Washington Ave, Ste 750
Towson, MD 21204
Phone: 410-583-8000
Email: info@whitneyfirm.com
Website: https://www.whitneyfirm.com
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Prior results do not guarantee future results, and all cases are different.
