Raatz v. Dealer Trade Incorporated
2:16-cv-00170
D. Ariz.Sep 29, 2017Background
- Plaintiffs (Raatz) purchased a used 2010 Infiniti QX56 from Dealer Trade Inc. in Aug. 2015 for $33,359.75, represented as having 35,648 miles.
- After purchase they learned Infiniti dealer service records indicated the vehicle had ~47,731 miles in 2011; defendant conceded a mileage discrepancy.
- Court previously held (summary judgment) that defendant made an express warranty as to mileage, the warranty was not validly disclaimed, and the warranty was breached.
- Trial addressed damages only; Plaintiffs were precluded from presenting incidental and consequential damages due to Rule 26 disclosure failures.
- Court found the vehicle likely had >100,000 miles in 2015 and therefore was worth substantially less than the purchase price.
- Court awarded Plaintiffs $16,859.75 (difference between $33,359.75 purchase price and $16,500 found value in 2015) and allowed motions for attorneys’ fees to be filed by deadline.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of mileage warranty | Raatz: Dealer warranted mileage (35,648); actual mileage was much higher | Dealer: Mileage discrepancy acknowledged but contested valuation consequences | Court: Express warranty existed, was not disclaimed, and was breached (prior SJ ruling) |
| Damages recoverable measure | Raatz: Value difference between warranted car and actual-mileage car; offered owner and expert testimony | Dealer: Amount speculative without precise mileage; valuation unreliable | Court: Arizona law allows approximate damages; Plaintiffs met "approximately accurate estimate" standard; award $16,859.75 |
| Admissibility of incidental/consequential damages | Raatz: Sought consequential/incidental damages | Dealer: Opposed disclosure/timeliness | Court: Plaintiffs failed to disclose such damages per Rule 26; evidence excluded under Rule 37(c)(1) |
| Competency of owner testimony | Raatz: Owner testimony and expert support valuation | Dealer: Valuation speculative absent exact mileage | Court: Owner competent to testify on value; his testimony combined with expert sufficed to establish damages by preponderance |
Key Cases Cited
- Felder v. Physiotherapy Assoc., 158 P.3d 877 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007) (uncertainty in amount of damages does not bar recovery once right to damages is established)
- Gilmore v. Cohen, 386 P.2d 81 (Ariz. 1963) (damages cannot be based on mere conjecture; must permit an approximately accurate estimate)
- McNutt Oil & Refining Co. v. D’Ascoli, 281 P.2d 966 (Ariz. 1955) (courts require evidence sufficient to permit an approximate damage estimate)
- Martin v. LaFon, 100 P.2d 182 (Ariz. 1940) (evidence must allow an approximately accurate estimate of damages)
- Sarwark Motor Sales, Inc. v. Husband, 426 P.2d 404 (Ariz. 1967) (owner competent to testify to value of personal property)
- Town of Paradise Valley v. Laughlin, 851 P.2d 109 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993) (reaffirming that an owner may testify as to property value)