Lead Opinion
OPINION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Heather Kesling appeals the trial court’s order granting summary judgment to Hu-bler Nissan, Inc., on her Indiana Deceptive Consumer Sales Act, Indiana Crime Victims Relief Act, and fraud claims. We reverse and remand.
ISSUE
Kesling presents one issue for our review: whether the trial court erred by granting summary judgment to Hubler on these claims.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The facts most favorable to Kesling are as follows. On October 20, 2007, Hubler inspected a 1996 Mitsubishi Eclipse and accepted it as a trade-in. The dealership then advertised the Eclipse on the internet at www.autotrader.com. The advertisement contained pictures of the vehicle, described it as a “Sporty Car at a Great Value Price,” Appellant’s App. p. 225, listed its features, and asked for a purchase price of $2981.
Kesling saw the advertisement and went to the dealership with her boyfriend on November 3, 2007, just fourteen days after the trade-in. Kesling test drove the Eclipse and noticed that it did not seem to be idling correctly. When she asked Hubler’s salesperson if there was anything wrong with the vehicle, hе responded that it had been “sitting for a while and probably just needed a tune-up.” Id. at 222. Kesling purchased the Eclipse that day for $2822.88.
Kesling filed a complaint against Hubler in January 2009, which she later amended. The amended complaint made Indiana Deceptive Consumer Sales Act, Indiana Crime Victims Relief Act, and fraud claims.
In April 2010, over two years after Kes-ling purchased the Eclipse, she had it inspected by Chris Whitsitt. In the inspection report, Whitsitt noted that the Eclipse was covered in dust and appeared to have been sitting for an extended period of time. By comparing the sales order to the odometer, Whitsitt determined that the vehicle had only been driven forty-four miles
Hubler moved for summary judgment on all of Kesling’s claims. Both parties filed briefs and designations of evidence. Included in Kesling’s designated evidence was an affidavit from "Whitsitt, in which he stated, “Many of the mechanical prоblems I found were very obvious, including the plugged fuel line and incorrectly routed air conditioner belt, such that they would have been obvious to anyone who would have inspected or serviced the Eclipse at a dealership.” Id. at 221.
After a hearing, the trial court granted summary judgment to Hubler on all claims except one of the Deceptive Consumer Sales Act claims. On Kesling’s motion, the trial court certified its order for interlocutory appeal. This Court, however, denied Kesling’s motion to acceрt jurisdiction of the appeal. The parties apparently settled the remaining claim. The trial court then certified its summary judgment order as a final judgment. Kesling now appeals.
DISCUSSION AND DECISION
Kesling contends that the trial court erred by granting summary judgment to Hubler. When reviewing the entry or denial of summary judgment, our standard of review is the same as that of the trial court: summary judgment is appropriate only where there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Ind. Trial Rule 56(C); Dreaded, Inc. v. St. Paul Guardian Ins. Co.,
I. DECEPTIVE CONSUMER SALES ACT
The provision of the Deceptive Consumer Sales Act at issue here states:
(a) The following acts or representations as to the subject matter of a consumer transaction, mаde orally, in writing, or by electronic communication, by a supplier, are deceptive acts:
(1) That such subject of a consumer transaction has sponsorship, approval, performance, characteristics, accessories, uses, or benefits it does not have which the supplier knows or should reasonably know it does not have.
Ind.Code § 24-5-0.5-3 (2007). The purposes of the Deceptive Consumer Sales Act are to “protect consumers from suppliers who commit deceptive аnd unconscionable sales acts” and to “encourage the development of fair consumer sales practices.” Ind.Code § 24-5-0.5-l(b)(2), (3) (2006); McKinney v. State,
In the trial court, Kesling claimed that Hubler made a representation that the Eclipse had the performance,
Kesling now argues that the trial court erred because there are genuine issues of material fact as to whether: (1) Hubler made a representation that the Eclipse had the performance, characteristics, uses, or benefits (2) it did not have, (3) which Hubler knew or should reasonably have known it did not have.
As to the representation, the designated evidence shows that Hubler advertised the Eclipse for $2981 and described it as a “Sporty Car at а Great Value Price.” Kes-ling claims that a trier of fact could reasonably infer from this evidence that Hu-bler was representing that the vehicle was safe to operate.
Hubler responds that the advertisement is not actionable under the Act because it never stated that the vehicle was safe to operate. Hubler cites Berghausen v. Microsoft Corp.,
Hubler claims that, as in Berghausen, the representation alleged by Kesling is not based upon a statement made by the suppliеr. We disagree and find Berghau-sen distinguishable. Berghausen alleged no written or oral representation but instead pointed only to Microsoft’s conduct. Here, Kesling points to Hubler’s advertisement stating that the Eclipse is a “Sporty Car at a Great Value Price.” Berghausen simply does not apply.
Hubler nonetheless argues that Kesling relies not on the words “Sporty Car at a Great Value Price” but on the inference she makes that Hubler represented that the Eclipse could be safely operated. In effect, Hubler argues that an implied representation cannot be a deceptive act under Indiana Code section 24-5-0.5-3. There is nothing in the statute, however, to indicate that a representation can
The fact issue here is akin to those in defamation cases where the jury determines the meaning of words used, see, e.g., Indianapolis Newspapers, Inc. v. Fields,
“Value” is defined as “a fair return or equivalent in goods, services, or money for something exchanged” оr “relative worth, utility, or importance <a good value at the price>.” Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, http://www.merriamwebster.com/ dictionary/value (last visited July 23, 2012). A definition of “sporty” is to “resembl[e] a sports car in styling or performance <a sporty sedan>.” Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sporty (last visited July 23, 2012). Given these ordinary definitions of “value” and “sporty,” we conclude that a fact-finder could reasonably determine that Hubler, in making the statement “Sporty Car at a Great Value Price,” implied that the Eclipse was a good сar for the price and thus, at a minimum, safe to operate. How else could it have “great value” and be a “sporty ear”? “Sporty Car at a Great Value Price” goes beyond a bare “1996 Mitsubishi Eclipse for $2981” and thus can be read to mean more. Because a reasonable fact-finder could determine that Hubler said more than the bare representation yet now wants to be held only to the bare representation, the issue must be submitted to a jury.
Hubler next argues that the Act does not apply to nondisclosures, citing Lawson v. Hale,
Hubler claims that, as in Lawson, the Act does not apply because its failure to inform Kesling that the Eclipse was not safe to operate was a nondisclosure. However, as we have already concluded, a jury must determine whether Hubler made a representation that the vehicle was safe to operate. If a jury determines that Hubler made such a representation, Hubler would have not merely failed to disclose that the Eclipse was unsafe to operate but affirmatively represented that it was safe to operate. Lawson is distinguishable on this basis and therefore does not bar Kesling’s claim.
We thus conclude that the designated evidence establishes a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Hubler made a representation that the Eclipse was safe to operate, and this fact issue is to be resolved by the trier of fact and not by summary judgment.
As to whether the Eclipse was safe to operate at the time of purchase, the designated evidence includes Whitsitt’s inspection report, which detailed numerous problems with the vehicle and concluded that it was unsafe to drive. Hubler notes that Whitsitt’s inspection occurred over two years after Kesling purchased the vehicle and that there is no evidence that the vehicle was unsafe to drive at the time of purchase. However, in the inspection report, Whitsitt stated that the Eclipse was covered in dust, apрeared to have been sitting for an extended period of time, and had only been driven forty-four miles since Kesling purchased it. This evidence establishes a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the Eclipse was unsafe to drive when Kesling purchased it.
As to Hubler’s knowledge, the designated evidence shows that many of the vehicle’s problems, including the plugged fuel return line and the incorrectly routed air conditioning belt, would have been obvious to anyone who had inspected the vehicle at a dealership. The designated evidence further shows that Hubler inspected the Eclipse at the time it was accepted as a trade-in. This evidence establishes a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Hubler knew or should reasonably have known that the Eclipse was unsafe to drive at the time Kesling purchased it.
We thus conclude that there are genuine issues of material fact as to whether Hu-bler made a representation that the Eclipse had the performance, characteristics, uses, or benefits it did not have, which Hubler knew or should reasonably have known that it did not have. The trial court therefore erred by granting summary judgment to Hubler on this claim.
II. CRIME VICTIMS RELIEF ACT
Under the Crime Victims Relief Act, a person who suffers a pecuniary loss as a result of certain property crimes may bring a civil action against the person who caused the loss and recover up to three times the actual damages and a reasonable attorney’s fee, along with other expenses. Ind.Code § 34-24-8-1 (1998); Klinker v. First Merchs. Bank, N.A.,
Deception is one of the crimes covered by the Crime Victims Relief Act. Kesling claims that the trial court erred by granting summary judgment to Hubler on her Crime Victims Relief Act deception claim. A person who “disseminates to the public an advertisement that the person knows is false, misleading, or deceptive, with intent to promote the purchase or sale of property or the acceptance of employment” commits deception. Ind.Code § 35 — 43—5—3(a)(9) (1996). “In determining whether an advertisement is false, misleading, or deceptive under subsection (a)(9), there shall be considered, among other things, not only representations contained or suggested in the advertisement, by whatever means, including device or sound, but also the extent to which the advertisement fails to reveal material facts in the light of the representations.” Ind. Code § 35-43-5-3(b).
The designated evidence shows that Hubler inspected the Eclipse when it was accepted as a trade-in, should have noticed that it had serious mechanical problems, yet advertised it on the internet for $2981 and described it as a “Sporty Car at a Great Value Price.” This evidence establishes genuine issues of material fact as to whether Hubler disseminated to the public an advertisement that it knew was misleading or deceptive with the intent to promote the sale of the Eclipse.
Hubler nonetheless argues that to revеrse the trial court’s grant of summary judgment on this claim is to hold that implied in every used car advertisement is a representation that the vehicle is safe to operate. Our holding is not so broad. Had Hubler merely listed the vehicle’s specifications and features, Kesling likely would not have a viable case. However, Hubler’s advertisement also stated that the Eclipse was a “Sporty Car at a Great Value Price.” A fact-finder could reasonably conclude that this is an indication that it is a good car fоr the price and that, at a minimum, it is safe to operate. A fact-finder could also reasonably conclude that a used vehicle being advertised for $2981 with numerous mechanical issues that could result in total loss of steering control or cause it to burst into flames while driving is not a good car for the price.
We conclude that the trial court erred by granting summary judgment to Hubler on this claim.
III. FRAUD
Kesling finally contends that the trial court erred by granting summary judgment to Hubler on her fraud claim. Fraud occurs when there is a material misrepresentation of past or existing fact made with knowledge of or reckless disregard for the falsity of the statement, and the misrepresentation is relied upon to the detriment of the relying party. Colonial Penn Ins. Co. v. Guzorek,
Kesling cites Lawson, the tractor case discussed above, for the proposition that “[w]hen a buyer makes inquiries about the condition, qualities, or characteristics of property ‘it becomes incumbent upon the seller to fully declare any and all problems associated with the subject of the inquiry.’ ”
Hubler does not contest that when a buyer makes inquiries about the condition, qualities, or characteristics of property, the seller must disclose all known problems associated with the subject of the inquiry. Rather, Hubler argues that there is no designated evidence showing that the Eclipse was unsafe to operate on the date of sale, and thus Kesling cannot show that Hubler had a duty to disclosе. As discussed above, however, a fact-finder could reasonably conclude from Whitsitt’s inspection report that the Eclipse was unsafe to operate on the date of sale.
Hubler also argues that the salesperson’s response did not indicate that the only issue with the Eclipse was that it needed a tune-up and cites First Bank of Whiting v. Schuyler,
The facts in Schuyler are distinguishable. There, the buyer specifically asked about the cause of thе damp carpets and warped floors, and the seller accurately responded that the cause was a broken water heater. In contrast, the designated evidence here shows that Kesling generally asked if there was anything wrong with the Eclipse, and the salesperson responded that it “just” needed a tune-up. This is evidence that Hubler told Kesling that the necessity of a tune-up was the only problem with the vehicle. Schuyler does not support Hubler’s argument.
The designated evidence most favorable to Kesling shows that Hubler inspected thе Eclipse, knew that it was unsafe to operate, advertised it as a “Sporty Car at a Great Value Price,” told Kesling that it “just” needed a tune-up, and sold the vehicle to her. This evidence establishes genuine issues of material fact as to whether Hubler made a material misrepresentation of fact with knowledge of or reckless disregard for the falsity of the statement and whether Kesling relied on the misrepresentation to her detriment. The trial court therefore erred by granting summary judgment to Hubler on this claim.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated, we reverse the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to Hubler on these claims and remand for further proceedings.
Reversed and remanded.
Notes
. Hubler has filed an Appellee’s Motion to Strike, asking us to strike statements in Kes-ling’s brief that Hubler asserts are based on evidence not specifically designated to the trial court. Kesling has filed an Appellant’s Response to Appellee's Motion to Strike. We do not rely on any of the challenged statements in resolving this appeal; therefore, we deny Hubler's motion as moot by separate order issued contemporaneously with this opinion.
. Kesling points out that a large part of the trial court’s order is taken verbatim from Hu-bler’s brief and questions whether the court exercised its own independent judgment. A trial court’s practice of adopting a party's proposed findings verbatim "weakens our confidence as an appellate court that the findings are the result of considered judgment by the trial court.” Cook v. Whitsell-Sherman,
. Moreover, we note that Hubler's summary judgment memorandum to the trial court listed as an undisputed fact that "[a]t the time Kesling purchased the Eclipse, the Eclipse was in need of major repairs.” Appellant’s App. p. 44.
Dissenting Opinion
dissenting.
I believe the advertisement in question does not run afoul of the Indiana Deceptive Consumer Sales Act and therefore respectfully disagree that a question of fact remains that renders Kesling’s cause of action on that basis viable.
The provision in question states:
(a) The following acts, and the following representations as to the subject matter of a consumer transaction, made orally, in writing, or by electronic communication, by a supplier, are deceptive acts:
(1) That such subject of a consumer transaction has sponsorship, approval, performance, characteristics, accessories, uses, or benefits it does not have which the supplier knows or should reasonably know it does not have.
Ind.Code Ann. § 24-5-0.5-3 (West, West-law current with all 2012 legislation). The Majority concludes that (1) “Sporty Car at a Great Value Price” arguably conveys the representation that the car was safe to operate, (2) a question of fact remains as to whether the car in question was not, in fact, safe to operate, аnd (3) a question of fact remains as to whether Hubler Nissan knew it was unsafe, but nonetheless implied that it was (see (1) above). To survive summary judgment, Kesling was required to establish all three of these propositions. I believe Kesling’s case fails at (1).
Unlike the Majority, I cannot agree that “Sporty Car at a Great Value Price” says anything at all about the car’s drivability— much less that it warrants that the vehicle is in a condition such that it may be safely operated. Rather, it merely says what it says, i.e., (1) that the car is “sporty,” which is commonly understood to mean resembling or styled after a sports car; and (2) that the purchase price is low relative to the vehicle’s market value. Leaving aside the fact that this very generic advertising phrase is widely regarded as typical used-car-sales puffery that conveys virtually nothing about the particular vehicle to which it is attached, the phrase is devoid of content relative to the vehicle’s operating status. In my view, the Majority’s conclusion that the phrase may be interpreted to infer that the vehicle may be safely operated in its current condition is simply unreasonable. I would affirm summary judgment in favor of Hubler Nissan.