Preview:

STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS


MATTHEW LAURA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant.

FOR PUBLICATION January 17, 2006 9:10 a.m. No. 263332 Washtenaw Circuit Court LC No. 03-001260-NZ Official Reported Version

Before: Fitzgerald, P.J., and O'Connell and Kelly, JJ. PER CURIAM. Following an order of remand from our Supreme Court,1 defendant DaimlerChrysler Corporation appeals as on leave granted the order denying its motion for summary disposition in this case brought pursuant to the Michigan Consumer Protection Act (MCPA), MCL 445.901 et seq. We reverse and remand. In August 1997 plaintiff Matthew Laura purchased a used 1996 Dodge Neon with 17,000 miles on it from Arbor Dodge in Ann Arbor. On December 15, 1997, when the Neon had approximately 27,000 miles on it, plaintiff brought the vehicle to Arbor Dodge because of leaking oil. Arbor Dodge replaced the cylinder head gasket at no charge to plaintiff. On January 19, 1999, when the Neon had approximately 52,000 miles on it, Arbor Dodge service technicians recorded another head gasket leak that they repaired instead of replacing the head gasket. On January 15, 2001, when the Neon had approximately 80,000 miles on it, Arbor Dodge replaced the head gasket for the second time at no charge to plaintiff. On January 11, 2001, plaintiff retained an attorney. In August 2003, plaintiff traded in the Neon at a Mazda dealership and received a $200 trade-in allowance toward the purchase of a new Mazda. In November 2003 plaintiff filed a complaint alleging, in pertinent part, that defendant's failure to warn of the vehicle's alleged defective head gasket design violated MCL

1

Laura v DaimlerChrysler Corp, 472 Mich 926 (2005).

-1-


445.903(1)(s) of the MCPA.2 The trial court denied defendant's motion for summary disposition, rejecting defendant's argument that plaintiff 's action is barred by the applicable statute of limitations. The court opined that "the occurrence for purposes of subsection S [MCL 445.903(1)(s)] in this case was when the gasket first failed." We review de novo both the trial court's decision to deny defendant's motion for summary disposition and questions of statutory interpretation. People v Perkins, 473 Mich 626, 630; 703 NW2d 448 (2005); Maiden v Rozwood, 461 Mich 109, 118; 597 NW2d 817 (1999). MCL 445.903(1) provides in relevant part: Unfair, unconscionable, or deceptive methods, acts, or practices in the conduct of trade or commerce are unlawful and are defined as follows: * * *

(s) Failing to reveal a material fact, the omission of which tends to mislead or deceive the consumer, and which fact could not reasonably be known by the consumer. And MCL 445.911(7) provides as follows: An action under this section shall not be brought more than 6 years after the occurrence of the method, act, or practice which is the subject of the action nor more than 1 year after the last payment in a transaction involving the method, act, or practice which is the subject of the action, whichever period of time ends at a later date. However, when a person commences an action against another person, the defendant may assert, as a defense or counterclaim, any claim under this act arising out of the transaction on which the action is brought. When faced with questions of statutory interpretation, the courts must discern and give effect to the Legislature's intent as expressed in the words in the statute. Pohutski v City of Allen Park, 465 Mich 675, 683; 641 NW2d 219 (2002). Where the language is unambiguous, it must be presumed that the Legislature intended the meaning clearly expressed, and no further judicial interpretation is permitted. Id. The plain language of

Download MATTHEW LAURA V DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORP.pdf

Michigan Law