Simpson v. Hyundai Motor America, Inc.

Citations: 603 S.E.2d 723; 269 Ga. App. 199Docket: A04A1279, A04A1301

Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia; August 20, 2004; Georgia; State Appellate Court

Combined Opinion SummaryCombined Opinion Original

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Angela Simpson and Tina Phillips appeal the trial court's summary judgment in their lawsuits against Hyundai Motor America, Inc. (HMA) under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and Georgia law, alleging breach of express and implied warranties, as well as revocation of acceptance. The cases have been consolidated for appeal due to similar issues. The appellate court conducts a de novo review, assessing evidence favorably towards the nonmovant to identify any genuine material facts.

In Case No. A04A1279, Simpson purchased a 2001 Hyundai Accent for $12,500, accompanied by a limited warranty covering defects for 60,000 miles or 60 months. This warranty explicitly excluded coverage for incidental or consequential damages. The warranty also required customers to utilize the Better Business Bureau (BBB) Auto Line for warranty complaints before pursuing legal action. 

Simpson experienced multiple transmission issues shortly after purchase, leading her to return to the dealer for repairs at various mileage points. Despite repairs totaling over $400, problems persisted, prompting her to contact the BBB Auto Line and subsequently revoke acceptance of the vehicle through her attorney. HMA responded with an offer to replace or repurchase the vehicle for $11,809.01, which Simpson rejected.

Simpson has continued to operate her Hyundai Accent, making payments, obtaining insurance, and paying ad valorem taxes since her attempted revocation of acceptance on June 18, 2002. As of her deposition on February 6, 2003, she had driven the vehicle over 13,000 miles. An inspection by Ben Hall, District Parts and Service Manager for HMA, on April 2, 2003, concluded that the Accent functioned normally and was not defective.

Phillips purchased a 2002 Hyundai Sonata for $23,749.52 on September 29, 2001, receiving the Owner's Handbook and Warranty Information, which influenced her purchase decision. The Limited Warranty she received was consistent with Simpson's but specific to the 2002 model. The dealer, Rick Case, disclaimed all warranties, including express and implied ones, in the purchase contract above Phillips' signature. 

Phillips' uncle, Mancell Roby, co-signed for the car and bought a CostGuard Vehicle Service Agreement with Acceleration National Service Corporation. Phillips experienced various issues with the Sonata, starting with a nonworking brake light, which was repaired at no cost. Subsequent complaints included a ticking noise and transmission jerking, leading to multiple service visits where repairs were made, including a drive belt replacement and transmission fluid service, all covered under warranty.

On August 29, 2002, Phillips visited Jim Ellis Hyundai for multiple electrical issues and ongoing transmission problems, resulting in significant repairs exceeding $1,000, all covered by her warranty. Further issues arose, including an inoperable sunroof and flickering lights, necessitating additional service and repairs. On November 22, 2002, Phillips, through her attorney, sent a letter to HMA attempting to revoke acceptance of the Sonata.

On December 2, 2002, Phillips reported multiple issues with her Hyundai Sonata to the BBB Auto Line Program. On December 23, 2002, HMA proposed to either replace or repurchase the vehicle for $23,749.52, minus mileage; however, Phillips initially rejected this offer, later stating in a June 2003 deposition that she was unaware of it. In an October 2003 affidavit, she claimed to have known about and rejected the offer. Despite ongoing issues, Phillips continues to drive the Sonata, making payments and paying taxes on it. 

An inspection on July 30, 2003, by HMA's District Parts and Service Manager, Hall, revealed the Sonata had 33,738 miles and performed normally, with no transmission or engine issues found. He noted that while the electrical system was functioning well, routine maintenance issues were present, including extremely dirty oil, a burnt-out fog light bulb, and neglected tire rotation and pressure. 

Phillips and Simpson argued against summary judgment related to their warranty claims, asserting evidence of breaches. The legal precedent states that a breach of express warranty occurs only when the warrantor fails to remedy defects after being given a chance to do so. The warranty obligates the manufacturer to repair or replace defective parts, contingent upon the purchaser maintaining the vehicle as specified. Breach is determined by the warrantor's refusal or failure to adequately address issues within a reasonable time.

Simpson and Phillips did not return their vehicles to an authorized dealer for final repairs. HMA's expert, Hall, inspected both cars and found them functioning properly. Simpson and Phillips failed to provide evidence of defects or unsuccessful repairs beyond their subjective opinions. Citing Aldridge v. King's Colonial Ford, the court found that they did not create a factual dispute warranting a trial, thus granting summary judgment to HMA on their express warranty claims. 

Regarding implied warranty claims under Georgia law, proof of defects at the time of sale is essential. Simpson’s Accent was purchased on October 15, 2001, with no issues reported until December after 3,784 miles; Phillips’ Sonata was bought on September 29, 2001, with complaints only after 5,984 miles. The court noted that establishing defects at the time of purchase would require speculation, making their claims untenable. 

Both plaintiffs contested the trial court's decision to strike their affidavits about vehicle value. Phillips also referenced the striking of Dickerson’s affidavit, which was invalid as he had been withdrawn as an expert prior to deposition. Simpson’s enumeration of error did not specify improper evidence admission, thus not warranting consideration. The court deemed the issue of their affidavits moot due to the failure of their underlying claims. Phillips raised issues regarding Pennacchio's affidavit, but these arguments were not presented at trial and were therefore not considered. The court affirmed the trial court's decisions, indicating no abuse of discretion in evidence admission.