Lemon Law Victory for Porsche and Jeff Fertl
Congratulations to my colleague Jeff Fertl who recently prevailed (July 17, 2009) on questions certified from the Seventh Circuit to the Wisconsin Supreme Court on Lemon Law issues. In Tammi v. Porsche Cars, the Supreme Court considered four certified questions and concluded:
When a consumer who is leasing a motor vehicle brings an action against the manufacturer of the vehicle pursuant to subsection (7) of Wis. Stat. § 218.0171, and then exercises his option to purchase the vehicle under the terms of the lease, the consumer is not entitled to damages for the price of his voluntary purchase because his purchase was not “caused” by any violation of the statute by the manufacturer. See Wis. Stat. § 218.0171(7).
The second and third questions were mooted by the answer to the first question. As to the final question, the Supreme Court concluded:
The plain language of the statute makes clear that a consumer’s refund under Wis. Stat. § 218.0171(2)(b)2.b. or 3.a. is subject to a reasonable allowance for use. Because we read subsection (7) in conjunction with the rest of the statute, we conclude that the amount of “pecuniary loss” under Wis. Stat. § 218.0171(7) must incorporate a reasonable allowance for use before the pecuniary loss is doubled.
With the questions answered, the case has been remanded to the Seventh Circuit for further proceedings.
If you’re a lemon law practitioner, the analysis is interesting. If you’re not, the background discussion of the lemon law and its history might still be interesting. In either event, congratulations to Jeff and his client.
