November 29, 2021

I know there are a lot of avid Jeep lovers out there, but I recently received a final ruling in a case where attorneys for Jeep had to have two separate judges explain to them that a leaking sunroof that let water pour onto the occupants of a brand new Jeep Grand Cherokee that wasn’t fixed after four repair attempts is, in fact, a problem. Keep this in mind before buying anything from Jeep in the future. Jeep’s manufacturer, (Fiat Chrysler Automobiles, LLC at the time, now Stellantis, but I’ll refer to it as “Jeep” for clarity here) fought my clients for years. Jeep argued, among other things, that a leaking sunroof that their dealerships couldn’t fix didn’t affect the “use and value” of the vehicle because the car could still be driven. Here’s the video of of what happened when a garden hose was streamed over the (closed) sunroof of the car after the car had been in the shop four times for attempted repair of the sunroof:

I’ll never forget the incredulity in the voice of one of the judges who ruled against Jeep when she asked if they were really arguing that a huge leak into a new car isn’t a problem as long as it can still be driven, saying: “You’re saying that it still operates as it should in terms of use, and it doesn’t if it leaks. You have to admit if it leaks it doesn’t, right? I’m not saying you can’t repair it. I’m just saying it’s not – I wouldn’t get in it.” Here’s that clip from the hearing:

Jeep also argued that since the Maryland Lemon Law applies when a manufacturer or its agent “is unable to repair or correct any defect or condition [ ] after a reasonable number of attempts,” which is later set at four attempts, it means that a customer has to prove that Jeep couldn’t possibly fix the defect, not just that it didn’t after four attempts. This reading of the statute would render it worthless, because there is almost nothing that could go wrong with a car that a multibillion-dollar company could not possibly fix. The only problem that I could come up with that was close to something that couldn’t be fixed would have to be some type of haunted car – your standard Christine scenario:

Ultimately, the Court rejected Jeep’s arguments and ruled that Jeep had to repurchase the vehicle, entering judgment in favor of our clients for $51,934.56.

Then, the judge ruled that FCA had to pay an additional $75,737.76 in attorneys’ fees for our two years of representation of the Plaintiffs – every penny that we requested under the applicable fee shifting statute. Fee shifting statutes allow consumer attorneys to represent clients without needing to charge them by the hour, instead having the defendant pick up the tab once the case is resolved in favor of the consumer.

So, in full, Jeep fought for two years and made a shocking admission regarding its commitment to quality in its vehicles by saying that a massive leak is not a substantial problem, yet still had to 1) repurchase the Jeep and pay our clients more than the amount they paid to buy it new three years ago, 2) pay their own attorneys for two years of litigating against us, and 3) pay our reasonable attorneys’ fees of $75,737.76 to beat them. All in all a pretty good result for consumers and an expensive and embarrassing misadventure for Jeep.