Lester v. FCA US, L.L.C.
2022 Ohio 1776
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background:
- In Nov. 2016 Derek Lester bought a new 2016 Ram 1500 covered by FCA’s 3-year/36,000-mile basic and 5-year/100,000-mile powertrain warranties (tires excluded).
- Lester experienced an intermittent highway-speed vibration and took the truck to multiple FCA dealers; dealers repeatedly attributed the issue to tires and recommended/replaced tires; Lester replaced tires several times without curing his subjective vibration.
- FCA opened CAIR file 33350085; an FCA technical adviser (Roland Dube) later inspected and used a vibration analyzer and concluded the truck showed no abnormal vibration or warrantable defect.
- At trial a jury found no warrantable defect and found FCA did not breach express or implied warranties (Lemon Law/MMWA/breach claims), but found a CSPA violation based on a finding that a dealer had a vibration analyzer and failed to contact Lester; the court awarded $11,500 plus $41,213.25 in attorney fees.
- Both sides appealed: Lester argued the court’s Lemon Law jury instruction misstated the plaintiff’s burden; FCA challenged denial of directed verdict/JNOV on the CSPA claim and the attorney-fee award.
- The appellate court affirmed the Lemon Law instruction, reversed the CSPA judgment (holding the jury’s no-defect findings precluded CSPA liability), vacated damages and fees for the CSPA claim, and remanded for entry of judgment for FCA on the CSPA claim.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Lester) | Defendant's Argument (FCA) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court misinstructed the jury on the Lemon Law burden to prove a defect | Instruction should have expressly allowed inference from symptoms and said plaintiff need not eliminate all other causes | Instruction given (modified OJI language) correctly stated law and allowed reasonable inference of a warrantable defect | Affirmed — court did not abuse discretion; instruction adequate |
| Whether JNOV should have been granted on the CSPA claim where jury found no warrantable defect or warranty breach | CSPA claim was independently based on dealers’ refusal to further diagnose and failure to use corporate resources (not solely derivative of warranty claims) | CSPA claim was derivative of warranty claims; jury’s findings of no defect/breach preclude CSPA liability as a matter of law | Reversed — JNOV required; enter judgment for FCA on CSPA and vacate damages/fees |
| Whether the trial court exceeded statutory authority in awarding attorney fees under R.C. 1345.09 for the CSPA claim | Fees were appropriate after CSPA verdict | Fees improper if CSPA verdict cannot stand | Moot after reversal of CSPA judgment (court rendered issue moot) |
Key Cases Cited
- Cromer v. Children’s Hosp. Med. Ctr. of Akron, 29 N.E.3d 921 (Ohio 2015) (jury-instruction legal correctness and de novo review)
- Adams v. State, 45 N.E.3d 127 (Ohio 2015) (trial court may use its own language to convey legal principles in jury instructions)
- Murphy v. Carrollton Mfg. Co., 575 N.E.2d 828 (Ohio 1991) (standards for giving requested jury instructions)
- Johnson v. Microsoft Corp., 834 N.E.2d 791 (Ohio 2005) (distinguishing deceptive consumer-sales practices from unconscionable acts under the CSPA)
- Link v. FirstEnergy Corp., 64 N.E.3d 965 (Ohio 2016) (standards for reviewing judgment-notwithstanding-the-verdict motions de novo)
- Environmental Network Corp. v. Goodman Weiss Miller L.L.P., 893 N.E.2d 173 (Ohio 2008) (definition of legal sufficiency for JNOV review)
- Frank v. WNB Group, LLC, 135 N.E.3d 1142 (Ohio App.) (a deceptive act is one likely to induce a consumer belief not in accord with the facts)