FRANCIENNA GRANT VS. DAN'S AUTO BODY, L.L.C. AND DAN RUSSO(L-000174-14, CAPE MAY COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
A-3462-15T2
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Jul 21, 2017Background
- In 2007 Grant took her 2000 Jeep to Dan's Auto Body; she later alleged defendants installed "economy"/junkyard parts rather than Mopar-like parts and that she was not given invoices at that time.
- In November 2013 Dan's repainted the hood for free; as Grant exited the shop her brakes failed and she alleges she then discovered the used parts and corrosion causing the failure.
- Grant filed suit in April 2014 asserting negligence, breach of contract/implied warranty, violations of the Consumer Fraud Act (CFA), and regulatory violations; she sought treble damages under the CFA.
- The trial court limited claims about the 2007 work as time-barred, allowed an amended CFA pleading, and later granted summary judgment to defendants (Jan. 6, 2016), finding no genuine issues of material fact and rejecting CFA, contract, and warranty claims; a motion for reconsideration was denied.
- Key factual findings: defendants performed the 2007 work and the 2013 repaint (free); invoices indicated "economy parts" and were signed by Grant; Kindle Auto Plaza later noted rust/used parts but did not conclusively tie those parts to defendants' 2007 work.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Statute of limitations / discovery rule for 2007 repairs | Grant contends latent defects were not discoverable until 2013, so the 2007 claim is timely | Defendants argue the 2007 claims are time-barred and Grant cannot show delayed discovery or tolling | Court: 2007 claims barred; discovery rule not shown and Grant lacked expert proof connecting 2007 work to 2013 failure |
| Consumer Fraud Act (CFA) violations (2007 & 2013) | Grant says defendants used improper parts and failed to provide required documentation, causing ascertainable loss | Defendants say they complied with CFA requirements in 2007, provided documentation, and the 2013 repaint was free (no compensable loss) | Court: CFA claims dismissed for lack of unlawful practice, ascertainable loss, and causal nexus |
| Breach of contract / implied warranty | Grant alleges agreement to use quality Mopar-like parts and breach when economy parts used | Defendants point to signed invoices noting economy parts and deny causation; no expert evidence from Grant | Court: Contract/warranty claims dismissed for insufficient evidence and lack of expert/lay proof linking parts to failure |
| Discovery sanctions and statutory standing under motor-vehicle licensing statute | Grant sought sanctions for alleged discovery failures and asserted claims under N.J.S.A. 39-based regulations | Defendants deny discovery default; enforcement under N.J.S.A. 39 reserved to MVC director | Court: Denied sanctions; held Grant lacked standing to bring statutory licensing claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Caravaggio v. D'Agostini, 166 N.J. 237 (statute-of-limitations/discovery-rule principle applied to latent defect claims)
- Ford Motor Credit Co., LLC v. Mendola, 427 N.J. Super. 226 (expert proof requirement and timeliness in similar contexts)
- D'Agostino v. Maldonado, 216 N.J. 168 (framework and objectives of Consumer Fraud Act analysis)
- Bosland v. Warnock Dodge, Inc., 197 N.J. 543 (elements required to prove a CFA claim)
- Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 142 N.J. 520 (summary-judgment standard and viewing evidence in favor of nonmoving party)