Gliottone v. Ford Motor Co.
130 N.E.3d 212
Mass. App. Ct.2019Background
- In July 2010 Thomas R. Gliottone bought a new 2010 Ford F‑150 from Rodman Ford; the truck came with Ford's limited warranty.
- Within weeks the truck exhibited serious problems (would not start, stalled, loss of power, “wrench” light) and was sent multiple times to Tasca (a Ford dealer) for repairs within the one‑year/15,000‑mile Lemon Law term.
- Tasca installed a supercharger in 2010 at Gliottone’s request (invoice: “engine repair”); Ford continued to pay some warranty claims afterward and had directed Gliottone to Tasca via roadside assistance.
- The truck was repeatedly repaired (throttle position sensor, fuel pump, power control module, throttle body), remained frequently out of service, and Gliottone demanded repurchase under the Massachusetts Lemon Law; Ford refused and litigaton followed.
- At summary judgment the Superior Court granted judgment for defendants on all counts, holding that plaintiff needed expert testimony to prove the vehicle did not conform to warranties; the Appeals Court reversed and vacated the judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether expert testimony is required to prove a nonconformity under the Massachusetts Lemon Law (G. L. c. 90, § 7N 1/2) | Gliottone: lay evidence (own testimony, service invoices, warranty actions) can show obvious malfunctions (won't start, stalls, loss of power) and meet the statutory nonconformity standard | Ford: expert testimony is required to prove the vehicle did not conform to warranties (and to prove causation), so summary judgment for defendants was proper without expert proof | Court: Expert testimony is not always required; lay jurors can find obvious malfunctions establish nonconformity, so summary judgment was improper on that basis |
| Whether plaintiff needed expert testimony to negate statutory affirmative defenses (unauthorized repair or modification) | Gliottone: disputed facts (problems before/during/after supercharger; invoices and Ford’s conduct) permit a reasonable juror to infer supercharger was authorized or not causal without experts | Ford: supercharger was an unauthorized modification causing problems, requiring expert proof to disprove causation/defense | Court: A juror can infer from the timeline, invoices, and Ford’s conduct that the supercharger did not cause the persistent problems or was authorized; expert testimony not required as a matter of law |
| Whether the reasonable‑number‑of‑attempts and opportunity‑to‑cure thresholds were met for Lemon Law relief | Gliottone: presented evidence of multiple repairs and cumulative out‑of‑service time within the statutory term | Ford: did not contest on appeal that those statutory thresholds were met | Court: The statutory thresholds were adequately presented and not disputed on appeal; trial required on merits |
| Effect of expert‑testimony ruling on related claims (breach of warranty, breach of implied warranties, G. L. c. 93A, revocation, unjust enrichment) | Gliottone: same evidentiary basis supports the related contract, warranty, and consumer‑protection claims without experts | Defendants: lack of expert proof compelled dismissal of all claims | Court: Because expert testimony is not categorically required to prove nonconformity, summary judgment on those related counts must be vacated and reconsidered by the trial judge under summary judgment standards |
Key Cases Cited
- Augat, Inc. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 410 Mass. 117 (standard for summary judgment)
- Smith v. Ariens Co., 375 Mass. 620 (expert testimony unnecessary when lay jurors can understand the defect)
- Providence & Worcester R.R. v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc., 416 Mass. 319 (expert testimony required for technical matters beyond lay understanding)
- Kourouvacilis v. General Motors Corp., 410 Mass. 706 (expert required where defect and causation are not apparent and vehicle much older)
- Goffredo v. Mercedez‑Benz Truck Co., 402 Mass. 97 (expert required to prove design defect where lay jurors cannot assess forces/technical causation)
- Commonwealth v. Pytou Heang, 458 Mass. 827 (purpose and limits of expert testimony)
- General Motors Corp. v. Zirkel, 613 N.E.2d 30 (Ind.) (lay proof sufficient to show automobile malfunction under a Lemon Law analog)