 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Burns v. General Motors Corporation11/11/2003
The defendant General Motors Corporation (General Motors) appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting the application of the plaintiffs, David Burns and William Burns, to vacate an arbitration award that had been rendered in favor of the defendants. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly vacated the award of the arbitration panel because the record contains substantial evidence to support the panel's findings that (1) there was a noise in the plaintiffs' vehicle and (2) that the noise did not substantially impair the use, safety or value of the vehicle. We reverse the judgment of the trial court.
The arbitration panel reasonably could have found the following relevant facts. On October 20, 2000, the plaintiffs purchased a new Chevrolet Cavalier from Woodbury West Chevrolet (West), a General Motors dealership in Woodbury. On October 26, 2000, the plaintiffs returned the car to West, complaining of a rattle in the transmission whenever the car shifted from first gear to second gear. A West technician road tested the car with the plaintiffs, at which time West informed the plaintiffs that it did not have a remedy for the noise. West told the plaintiffs that it would retain the car while it contacted General Motors to see if it was aware of the type of noise heard in the plaintiffs' car and whether the noise rendered the car unsafe. After holding the plaintiffs' car for three days and consulting General Motors about the noise, West informed the plaintiffs that the noise did not impair the car and that if General Motors were to issue a remedy for the noise, General Motors would inform the plaintiffs of the remedy. The plaintiffs continued to operate the car, but returned to West several more times in November, 2000, each time asking the dealership to remedy the noise. Each time, West told the plaintiffs that the car was safe to operate and that General Motors had no remedy for the noise. Neither General Motors nor West ever replaced the plaintiffs' car, the car's transmission or remedied the noise.
Thereafter, the plaintiffs initiated an arbitration proceeding against the defendant pursuant to General Statutes § 42-181 (lemon law). After a hearing, a majority of the three member arbitration panel of the automobile dispute settlement program determined that there was a noise in the transmission, but that the plaintiffs had failed to prove that the noise substantially impaired the use, safety or value of the car within the meaning of General Statutes § 42-179. Consequently, the panel concluded that no action be taken by the defendant. The plaintiffs filed a timely application in the trial court to vacate the arbitration award pursuant to General Statutes § 52-418. The court, in its memorandum of decision, found the plaintiffs' expert testimony more credible and persuasive than the defendant's on the degree to which the transmission noise impaired the car's value. Contrary to the arbitration panel, the court found that the transmission noise did substantially impair the use, safety or value of the car. It also found no basis in the record to uphold the award rendered in the defendant's favor. For those reasons, the court vacated the arbitration award in favor of the defendant and rendered judgment for the plaintiffs, awarding them the option to have a new, comparable car or of returning the car to the defendant. It also awarded to the plaintiffs all costs and reasonable attorney's fees. This appeal followed.
The defendant claims that the court improperly concluded that the record did not contain substantial evidence to support the arbitrators' finding that the noise in the transmission of the plaintiffs' car did not substantially impair the car's u
Page 1 2 3 Connecticut Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|