Date: 11-18-2015

Case Style: Steven Hale v. Jim Norton Chevrolet, LLC and General Motors, LLC

Case Number: CJ-2015-724

Judge: Linda G. Morrissey

Court: District Court, Tulsa County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney: Phil Frazier

Defendant's Attorney: Kirk Turner and Gregory Reilly for Jim Norton Chevrolet, LLC

Kyle Dreyer for General Motors, LLC

Description: Tulsa, OK - Steven Hale sued Jim Norton Chevrolet, LLC and General Motors, LLC on an auto negligence theory claiming:

1. Steven Hale is an individual and a truck driver for Oklahoma Custom
Courier, LLC The Defendant Jim Norton Chevrolet, LLC, is a limited liability company
doing business in Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma The Defendant, General Motor
Company, Chevrolet Division, is a corporation doing business within Tulsa County,
State of Oklahoma. The matters out of which this action arises occurred within Tulsa
County, State of Oklahoma. This is a court of competent jurisdiction and venue.
2. The Plaintiff is the owner of a 2008 Chevrolet Silverado VIN No.
1GBJC33638F218394, hereinafter referred to as the “truck.” On or about June 24, 2013, the Plaintiff began having engine trouble with his truck which he uses in his commercial hauling business for Oklahoma Custom Courier, LLC. The Plaintiff took his truck to the Defendant, Jim Norton Chevrolet, LLC (“Norton”), where he was advised that the engine would have to be replaced.
3. Plaintiff, upon recommendation and advice by Defendant Norton, obtained a remanufactured engine from General Motors Company, Chevrolet Division, and the engine was thereafter installed by Norton for a total cost to the Plaintiff of Fifteen Thousand Two Hundred Forty-five and 86/1 00 Dollars ($15,245.86) including cost of engine and installation.
4. Plaintiff’s truck at that time had 193,256 miles. The engine installed by Defendant Jim Norton provided by General Motors had a warranty of 18 months or 100,000 miles.
5. Plaintiff alleges and states that on the 14th day of October, 2013, the engine began to fail and was taken to a repair facility while on a trip in Midland, Texas. At that time and place, it was determined that the engine had inherent problems and could not be driven any farther. At that time the mileage was 220,990 miles. The Plaintiff was charged $313.57 for the engine inspection performed by All American Chevrolet of Midland, Texas.
6. Plaintiff had the truck towed from Midland, Texas, to Norton on October
23, 2013. Upon inspection, the Defendant Norton acknowledged engine failure including a melted piston, melted injectors, melted sensors from previous engine damage, as well as other component failures.
7. Plaintiff requested that the Defendants, and each of them, make the necessary repairs pursuant to the terms of the warranty agreement. Defendants declined. The cost charged by Defendant Norton for repairs and inspection to the remanufactured engine which had previously been provided by the Defendants was $4,903.31. Upon the Defendants’ refusal to make the necessary repairs and honor their warranty provisions, Plaintiff took the truck to another diesel repair shop where it was determined that as the engine was disassembled, several bolts were found to be missing or loose. In addition, part of the intake manifold was either broken and/or missing and bolts were missing from the EGR valve, as well as a bolt missing from the injection pump. The inspecting mechanic also determined that the harmonic balancer bolt had been over tightened resulting in a stripping of threads letting the balancer slip on the crankshaft and letting the engine run without a harmonic balancer.
8. Plaintiff alleges that the engine was either defectively assembled by General Motors Company, Chevrolet Division, prior to delivery to Jim Norton Chevrolet and/or Jim Norton Chevrolet’s mechanics negligently performed assembly work using some old parts from the previous engine. The parts were improperly installed in the reassembly of the remanufactured engine. In any event, Plaintiff alleges and states that the Defendants are guilty of faulty workmanship leading to the damages sustained by the Plaintiff. Plaintiff paid to Kamolz Garage the sum of $14,056.64 to make necessary repairs on the engine in order to get it back into service.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
BREACH OF CONTRACT AND
IMPLIED AND EXPRESSED WARRANTY
Plaintiff alleges and realleges each and every material allegation as hereinbefore set forth and further states as follows:
9. The Defendant Norton assured Plaintiff that the remanufactured engine which they would obtain from General Motors would be properly installed and would continue to provide service for Plaintiff’s trucking business. Norton further represented that the engine came with a 12-month, 12,000 miles warranty by Norton and a 36-month, 100,000 miles warranty by General Motors. Additionally, the Plaintiff was advised by Defendant Norton’s agents that they would stand behind the 100,000 miles warranty and that Plaintiff could expect the engine to last “much longer than that.” Plaintiff alleges and states and would show the Court that in spite of such warranties, express and implied, the engine lasted for only five months and was driven for only 26,935 miles. The failure of such engine was due to either faulty manufacture by the Defendant General Motors Company, Chevrolet Division, and/or faulty assembly by each of the Defendants, jointly and severally.
10. The Defendant Norton acknowledged that parts would be removed from Plaintiff’s old or present engine and utilized in the assembly and installation of the newly remanufactured engine obtained from General Motors Company, Chevrolet Division.
11. Plaintiff states that on his best belief and information the workers or mechanics at Jim Norton Chevrolet did not perform in accordance with workmanlike standards although they, by implied warranty, represented to the Plaintiff that they were knowledgeable and capable of the assembly and installation of the engine and that Plaintiff could expect long and dependable service from the installation of a remanufactured engine. Plaintiff alleges and states that the representatives, mechanics and other service people at Norton were either negligent or misinformed the Plaintiff, thereby breaching an implied warranty for fitness and purpose, knowing that the vehicle in question was used as a commercial service vehicle and one upon which the Plaintiff depended for his livelihood. Plaintiff prays for damages in excess of Seventy-five Thousand Dollars ($75,000.00) arising out of the Defendants’ breach of warranty and implied warranty plus attorney fees and court costs necessitated by this action.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, for his first cause of action arising out of breach of warranty, prays for damages in the amount of Twenty Thousand Four Hundred Sixty- two and 44/1 00 Dollars ($20,462.44).
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
LOSS OF INCOME
The Plaintiff alleges and realleges each and every material allegation as hereinbefore set forth and further states as follows:
12. Plaintiff alleges and states and would show the Court that when operating, Plaintiff’s company, Oklahoma Custom Courier, was earning approximately Four Thousand Dollars ($4,000.00) per month. As a result of the Defendants’ negligence in manufacturing and/or assembling the engine in Plaintiff’s truck, Plaintiff sustained a loss of use for four months spent in correcting and repairing errors and poor workmanship performed by the Defendants. Plaintiff alleges and states to the Court that he earns approximately Four Thousand Dollars ($4,000.00) per month and that the truck in question was used nearly continuously but for that time that it was unnecessarily out of use due to the poor and/or negligent work performance by each of the Defendants.
WHEREFORE, for his second cause of action, Plaintiff prays for damages in the amount of Sixteen Thousand Dollars ($16,000.00) plus attorney fees and court costs as necessitated by this action.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
MISREPRESENTATION
COMES NOW the Plaintiff and for his third cause of action, misrepresentation, alleges and realleges each and every material allegation as hereinbefore set forth and further states as follows:
13. Plaintiff alleges and states that the Defendant Norton represented to the Plaintiff certain defects in Plaintiff’s truck when it was initially brought to Norton on June 24, 2013. Plaintiff was assured by Norton that they could install a remanufactured engine from General Motors Company, Chevrolet Division, and that Plaintiff would experience long and dependable service once the installation was completed. Defendant Norton knew that the Plaintiff used his truck for commercial purposes as the principal of Oklahoma Custom Courier, LLC.
14. Defendant Norton represented to Plaintiff that they had experienced mechanics and technicians knowledgeable in the removal and reinstallation of remanufactured diesel engines and that they were capable to make such a replacement using a remanufactured engine as well as certain parts and components from the engine presently in Plaintiff’s truck.
15. Plaintiff relied upon the representations made by the Defendant Norton and agreed to the engine replacement.
16. Plaintiff further alleges and states that based upon his best information and belief the mechanic(s) and/or technician(s) who participated in the removal and reinstallation of the remanufactured engine were either not qualified to perform such tasks or did so negligently, thereby taking advantage of the Plaintiff and causing ensuing damages.
17. Due to the misrepresentation of the Defendant Norton, Plaintiff has been damaged in the amount of in excess of $10,000.00.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, for his third cause of action, prays for damages against the Defendant Norton in the amount of in excess of $10,000, plus attorney fees and court costs as necessitated by this action.

Outcome: Settled for an undisclosed sum and dismissed with prejudice.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: