Jackson v. Hazelrigg Automotive Service Center, Inc.
417 S.W.3d 886
Mo. Ct. App.2014Background
- Jackson sues Hazelrigg Automotive Service Center for breach of warranty and MMPA claims regarding a 1978 Cadillac overhaul.
- Hazelrigg gave a written one-year, 12,000-mile warranty on the work; Jackson incurred repair costs after the warranty period.
- Overhaul occurred December 2006; Jackson drove Oregon trip January 2007 with subsequent car issues including fuel economy, lifter noise, and oil consumption.
- Sam’s Auto Services performed related repairs in May 2007; additional engine work occurred in August 2008 (second overhaul)
- Trial court found Hazelrigg breached the warranty and awarded Jackson $1,892.58, but denied MMPA damages and post-warranty damages; on appeal, Jackson argues MMPA per se unfair practice, omission of material fact, and ambiguity/diminution claims
- Court affirmed trial court; weight-of-the-evidence and preservation rules were dispositive on certain issues
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is breach of warranty a per se unfair practice under the MMPA? | Jackson argues breach of an unambiguous warranty is per se unfair. | Hazelrigg contends unfairness is a factual question, not automatic per se. | Not per se; issue is a non-final factual determination. |
| Did Hazelrigg's alleged limitation that warranty coverage only in Missouri shop constitute a material omission violating the MMPA? | Jackson claims concealment of a material warranty limitation. | Court did not rely on such limitation; it found liability for warranty work performed during the warranty period. | No MMPA violation based on omission; argument unpersuasive. |
| Was the warranty language ambiguous and should diminution of value be awarded? | Jackson challenged the expiration language and sought diminution of value. | Record insufficient or not properly preserved to decide; court did not reach merits. | Point denied for lack of preservation; no ruling on ambiguity or diminution. |
Key Cases Cited
- Danforth v. Independence Dodge, Inc., 494 S.W.2d 362 (Mo. App. 1973) (MMPA purpose to supplement fraud definitions; fair dealing required)
- Kiechle v. Drago, 694 S.W.2d 292 (Mo. App. 1985) (unfair practice is a fact question for trial court)
- Schuchmann v. Air Services Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc., 199 S.W.3d 228 (Mo. App. 2006) (breach of lifetime warranty can be unfair practice; distinguish from Kiechle)
- Orkin Exterminating Co., Inc. v. F.T.C., 849 F.2d 1354 (11th Cir. 1988) (unilateral breach of guarantee analyzed under MMPA context)
- Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30 (Mo. banc 1976) (standard of review for bench trial judgments)
- Chochorowski v. Home Depot U.S.A., 404 S.W.3d 220 (Mo. banc 2018) (MMPA protections for consumers; definitions broad)
- Reliable Roofing, LLC v. Jones, 302 S.W.3d 232 (Mo. App. 2009) (appellate review of weight-of-the-evidence)
- Houston v. Crider, 317 S.W.3d 178 (Mo. App. 2010) (weight-of-evidence standard guidance)