New Jersey Lemon Law Lawyer Blog

Can you sue a finance company for consumer fraud as a result of a repossession? YES YOU CAN

February 14, 2016 | Jonathan Rudnick

THE REMEDIES PROVIDED IN THE NEW JERSEY CONSUMER FRAUD ACT ARE CUMULATIVE AND, IN ADDITION TO ANY REMEDIES CONTAINED IN THE UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE, THUS THE CLAIMS ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE

The rights provided under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act are in addition to any other statutory or common law rights. N.J.S.A. 56:8-2.3 which provides as follows:

The rights, remedies and prohibition accorded by the provisions of this Act are hereby declared to be in addition to and cumulative above any other rights, remedies or prohibition accorded by the common law or statutes of this State, and nothing contained herein shall be construed to deny, abrogate, or impair any such common law or statutory right, redress or prohibition.
The clear intent of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act was to provide consumers with additional and cumulative remedies and in no way curtail their remedial opportunities for the redress of fraud and other unconscionable practices afforded by any other statute or common law. Cybul v. Atrium Palace Syndicate, 272 N.J. Super. 330, 335 (App. Div. 1994).

In Cybul, the Appellate Division held that the plaintiff could maintain a cause of action under an administrative scheme wherein there was no direct provision for a cause of action to the plaintiff. In Lemelledo v. Beneficial Management, 150 N.J. 255 (1997), a watershed case, the New Jersey Supreme Court held that the plaintiff could maintain a private cause of action in addition to a statutory scheme which provided the plaintiff only a return of premiums paid under the policy. The New Jersey Supreme Court held that: “The CFA simply complements those statutes, allowing for regulation by the Division of Consumer Affairs and a private cause of action to recover damages. The damages cause of action in no way inhibits enforcement of other statutes, because a Court can assess damages in addition to any other penalty to which a defendant is subject.” Continue reading ›

Volkswagen gets sued by New Jersey

February 14, 2016 | Jonathan Rudnick

It is now apparent that Volkswagen appears to have significant legal troubles. Internet and news reports indicate the state of New Jersey has sued Volkswagen for selling vehicles with the inappropriate engines. It appears the state of New Jersey has put a bid out the law firms to represent the state in pursuing Volkswagen to recoup various costs, presumably environmental costs. New Jersey is not the only state to have filed a lawsuit against Volkswagen as numerous other states have done the same thing. In addition, class actions have been filed against Volkswagen and have been designated multi district litigation or MDL. What this means is that all the Volkswagen lawsuits from around the country, each and every case, will be transferred, consolidated into this one federal court action which appears to be pending in California.

Volkswagen has admitted equipping cars with software that let them cheat on diesel emissions tests in the U.S. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is suing the company in federal court over what it says were 600,000 such vehicles.

So not only does Volkswagen have the various lawsuits from the very states but they have been subject to numerous class actions which have been consolidated. It appears as though the only question is going to be when Volkswagen can no longer stand the pressure. One must assume that the financial pressure on Volkswagen is significant in light of the investigation and the lawsuits from the states and the amount of money that they are potentially seeking in compensation for the alleged and admitted corporate fraud. Pursuant to the link attached hereto, Volkswagen has admitted the corporate fraud and is working with the very states including California to repair the vehicles or make sure that the vehicles comply with the various states law including California’s law on omissions. Continue reading ›

NICB and VINCheck – Free consumer Help

February 11, 2016 | Jonathan Rudnick

National Insurance Crime Bureau or NICB, appears to be an organization, a not-for-profit organization, to assist various entities including law enforcement and insurance companies in preventing various types of insurance fraud. It also appears that they had created, maintain and utilize a database which obtains information from insurance companies among other sources. It appears through the website that there is a service and/or database which were created through National Insurance Brime Bureau that appears to store information on vehicles, stored through their vehicle identification numbers.

It also appears that there is something called VINCheck which is a service various entities can use to check the history of automobiles. One would assume that the reliability and the usefulness of this database depend upon the source of the information.

The NICB was formed in 1992 from a merger between the National Automobile Theft Bureau (NATB) and the Insurance Crime Prevention Institute (ICPI), both of which were not-for-profit organizations. The NATB — which managed vehicle theft investigations and developed vehicle theft databases for use by the insurance industry — dates to the early 20th century, while the ICPI investigated insurance fraud for approximately 20 years before joining with the NATB to form the present National Insurance Crime Bureau.

NICB’s VINCheck is a free service provided to the public to assist in determining if a vehicle has been reported as stolen, but not recovered, or has been reported as a salvage vehicle by cooperating NICB member insurance companies. To perform a search, a vehicle identification number (VIN) is required. A maximum of five searches can be conducted within a 24-hour period per IP address.

Credit Forget It and the NYS Attorney General

February 5, 2016 | Jonathan Rudnick

It appears as though the New York Atty. Gen. has clamped down on a number of large, franchised dealerships. It appears as though the New York Atty. Gen. has clamped down on dealerships selling a product which is produced, distributed and presumably created by a company called Credit Forget it. In June of last year the New York State Atty. Gen. assessed a tremendously large fine against the company called Credit Forget It. It appears as though the fine assessed against this company was in excess of $14 million. The New York State Atty. Gen. apparently considered the product improper and should not be sold with an in conjunction with the financing of automobiles.

After the New York Atty. Gen. shut down this company they then proceeded against all the dealerships were selling the product. It appears as though the allegations are that the dealerships were improperly selling the product, asserting that it was free one was not and selling a product that was in essence worthless. This is my take from the articles which have been published on the Internet. The following is contained in one of the articles:

According to the lawsuit, the Koeppel dealerships used deceptive sales tactics, including charging consumers for services while concealing such charges from the consumers, or by misrepresenting that the services were free. In fact, law enforcement indicated consumers did not receive the credit repair and identity theft protection services for which they were charged.

Jeep Grande Cherokee

February 3, 2016 | Jonathan Rudnick

According to this post from carcomplaints.com there is a ranking of the worst Jeep Grand Cherokee model years based on consumer complaints. It appears as though the 2011 Jeep Grand Cherokee was the model year with the most complaints the Jeeps. This specific graph containing information on the jeeps does not indicate what the problems were, where the problems were for the ultimate resolution. However, you can do some online research to determine the nature and extent of the various problems associated with the Jeep Grand Cherokee’s, various model years.

Obviously, the individual user experience will be different for each vehicle. This does not mean that you should completely overlook an excessive amount of imported complaints with regard to a specific vehicle. CarComplaints.com appears to be an excellent resource to research complaints on various vehicles. To go to their webpage look at the reports complaints for the vehicles. If you are doing research on purchasing either a new or used vehicle it cannot hurt to research the vehicle on this page. Then you can see if there were a lot of complaints, and model of the and/or the specific complaints that were made against a specific model year. It appears to be an excellent, free resource. They should be able one part of the court purchasing process.

If you have a vehicle with many complaints whether it be a new vehicle or a used vehicle, you might have a vehicle which might warrant a refund or some sort of compensatory damages. For new vehicles would pursue a claim under the lemon law. For a new vehicle you would pursue a claim under the used lemon law for a simple breach of warranty claim. In New Jersey the used car lemon law is not very effective and is extremely limited. Consumers have their rights under the Uniform Commercial Code. With new vehicles have a significant amount of additional rights due to the overlay of the New Jersey Lemon Law.

Claims for Fraud: What do you have to state in the court filing?

February 2, 2016 | Jonathan Rudnick

New Jersey law permits claims for fraud to be filed in the civil justice system. However, when pleading fraud the law requires a specificity of pleading. The law requires that the defendant should be put on notice as to what the fraudulent statements for which they are being sued. In a general sense it is best to plead who made the statement, to whom it was made, what the specific statement was and what was relied upon by the person suing. Again, this is in the general sense. However, the defendant should be put on notice as to what is being plead and why they are being sued.

This is known as the heightened pleading requirement. Usually, New Jersey is a notice pleading state. This means that you do not have to specifically state every fact upon which you will base your lawsuit. The facts only have to be stated in a general sense and generally refer to the cause of action. New Jersey has a very liberal pleading requirement with regard to the initial pleadings. This is different than federal court which has a heightened pleading requirement. Nonetheless, if you plead specific facts and legal claims the defendant is required to either admit or deny these claims in their answer. Sometimes, as a matter of strategy, it is better to plead a more specific claim than a general claim. In this fashion you might be able to determine what the nature and extent of the defenses will be.

This rule would apply to all transactions all plaintiffs and all defendants. Remember, it is covered in the New Jersey Court rules and it is a requirement. It is not uncommon that the fraud is not specifically plead and the defendants did not object to the filing of the claim. This could be a matter of strategy also. However, if the defendant does object to the type of pleadings were filed they would file a motion to compel a more specific statement of the fraud. The court would then either dismiss the complaint or permit an amended pleading to be filed with the court. In this way there’s fairness to both the plaintiff and the defendant.

DANGEROUS CERTIFIED PRE OWNED CARS SOLD BY FRANCHISE DEALERSHIPS

January 29, 2016 | Jonathan Rudnick

DANGEROUS CERTIFIED PRE OWNED CARS SOLD BY FRANCHISE DEALERSHIPS

It appears as though General Motors was cited by the Federal Trade Commission with regard to selling certified used vehicles are certified preowned program which had open recalls the actually dangerous. In addition, the selling dealer’s also appeared to have been cited and find by the FTC. It is unclear what extent General Motors is responsible since they did not sell cars only their authorized, franchise dealers sold the vehicles. Under the certified preowned program selling dealer is obligated to inspect the car pursuant to General Motors standards. It would be the duty and obligation selling dealer to check for recalls and make sure that the vehicles have been repaired and recall something. I’m assuming, if the vehicles were owned by General Motors previously, it would be the responsibility of General Motors to repair and or for recalls. It is unclear to what extent the liability is based directly on General Motors were the liability is based on the actions of their authorized dealers. The complaint appears to indicate that the vehicles were sold with open recalls. It appears as though the FTC is holding the manufacture responsible for authorize, franchise dealers selling vehicles with open, dangerous, active recalls. I would guess, the ultimate, it is responsibility factor to make sure that these recalls are prepared at the authorized dealers in the CPO or certified preowned program. The following was contained in the complaint

Since at least November 2014, Respondent has disseminated or has caused to be disseminated advertisements promoting the sale of “Certified Pre-Owned Vehicles.”Respondent establishes criteria for certifying pre-owned vehicles, which are then inspected and sold by Respondent’s local dealerships. Respondent provides consumers a 12-month/12,000-mile “bumper to bumper”

Auto Check and CARFAX

January 28, 2016 | Jonathan Rudnick

AutoCheck and CARFAX

I have reviewed the Autocheck site and have attempted to determine the difference between Carfax and AutoCheck. This is difficult to see and certainly difficult to understand and the plantation of the reporting of the data. In simple terms it’s hard to see the difference between the reports from an AutoCheck and report Carfax. Ultimately, it would be in the experience of the user as to the difference in these two services. The only real differences in the services appear to be the corporations behind them. Think that AutoCheck since it is backed and owned by Experian would have significantly more information. In my experience I’ve not found this to be true. Most of the time I have found Carfax to contain more, relevant, up-to-date information. However the certain his varied case-by-case circumstance. Just by looking at the list of the sources for AutoCheck it appears as though there is one major difference, in my opinion. It appears as though collision shop to report to AutoCheck. In my experience I’ve not seen collision shop reporting to AutoCheck outside of accidents. This means that if there is an accident in the history then I might find the report from a collision facility. Very rarely have I found a collision facility reporting outside of a please reported accident. My personal experience. However you need to review the AutoCheck website to see the nature and extent of their data sources. If you are attempting to purchase the vehicle it might be a good idea to purchase the AutoCheck and Carfax and compare them. Even before you run the Carfax or the AutoCheck on the vehicle you intend to purchase you might want to try running AutoCheck and Carfax and other vehicles in your household, family or friends with their permission. Then you might have the opportunity to see the difference between these 2 reports and determine which one is more useful with regard to wiring a vehicle and attempting to determine the nature and extent of the history of this vehicle.

Remember these are two separate companies and have similar data sources to be careful when using one over the other

Where does CARFAX get their data?

January 27, 2016 | Jonathan Rudnick

What information is contained in a CARFAX report

Many people are curious as to where Carfax gets all the information. Fortunately, the company who collects this information, Carfax, has placed the sources of their information on their website. One only needs to look at the website to determine if the source for all the information is accurate. The interesting item on this is the information from insurance companies. Many times people think that all accidents or all claims that are involved with insurance companies get reported to Carfax. According to the Carfax site this is not the case. According to the Carfax site only the information which results in salvage or junk titles gets reported. There is no specific delineation, no specific indication, that any and all claims that are paid on vehicles are reported to Carfax. As an example: There is an automobile accident and a vehicle receives damage and must be repaired which is paid for by the insurance company. The vehicle is not salvaged or total. One would think that this information should be or would be available to Carfax. According to the website this information is not available to Carfax. The accident report created by the police department might indicate an accident. But without this police reported accident and without this salvage title or junk title being issued it does not appear that in this information be reported. In my experience this is a common misconception with regard to the information contained in and reported on and through Carfax is. Carfax is an excellent resource to look at as far as the background of a vehicle. However it is imperative that you understand the entire data gathering process that is undergone in creating these reports. Nicely, Carfax has created on their website in place to examine all the sources of information. Once you look at this you can determine whether or not you find it personally useful.

The Law Office of Jonathan Rudnick LLC is a consumer law law firm

Truth In Lending Act

January 25, 2016 | Jonathan Rudnick

The following is part of TILA or Truth In Lending and addresses cash against credit transactions:

TILA (15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq., and Regulation Z, 12 C.F.R. § 1026.18(d), (e)): The failure to disclose the warranty and the cost of the GPS device as finance charges was a violation of regulation Z (12 C.F.R. § 1026.1), which implements TILA. “Regulation Z requires that the creditor provide consumers of closed-end credit, such as retail installment sales contracts, with clear and conspicuous written credit disclosures, 12 C.F.R. § 1026.17, including the finance charge and the APR. 12 C.F.R. § 1026.18(d), (e).” The finance charge is defined by Regulations Z as “any charge payable directly or indirectly by the consumer and imposed directly or indirectly by the creditor as an incident to or a condition of the extension of credit. It does not include any charge of a type payable in a comparable cash transaction.” Since only the credit consumers were subjected to these charges they amounted to finance charges under Regulation Z, and thus violated TILA.