Title: Jordan v. Nissan North America, Inc.

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

Jordan v. Nissan North America, Inc. (2002-446); 176 Vt. 465; 853 A.2d 40

2004 VT 27

[Filed 26-Mar-2004]
[Motion for Reargument Denied 26-May-2004]

       NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under
  V.R.A.P. 40 as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont
  Reports.  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,
  Vermont Supreme Court, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of
  any errors in order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes
  to press.

                                 2004 VT 27

                                No. 2002-446

  Neal and Terri Jordan	                         Supreme Court

                                                 On Appeal from
       v.	                                 Rutland Superior Court 

                                                 November Term, 2003
  Nissan North America, Inc. and 
  Jerry's Nissan, Inc.

  William D. Cohen, J.

  Jan Peter Dembinski and Herbert G. Ogden of Liccardi Crawford & Ogden,
    P.C., Rutland for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

  Shireen T. Hart of Eggleston & Cramer, Ltd., Burlington, and Bruce Terlep
    of Swanson, Martin & Bell, Wheaton, Illinois, for Appellee/Cross-Appellant.

  John J. Kennelly of Pratt Vreeland Kennelly Martin & White, Ltd., Rutland,
    for  Defendant-Appellee.

  PRESENT:  Amestoy, C.J., Dooley, Johnson and Skoglund, JJ., and Allen, C.J.
            (Ret.),  Specially Assigned

        
       ¶  1.  JOHNSON, J.   Plaintiffs Neal and Terri Jordan appeal from a
  jury verdict in favor of defendants Nissan North America, Inc. and Jerry's
  Nissan, Inc. on plaintiffs' claims under Vermont's Consumer Fraud Act, 9
  V.S.A. § 2453(a).  Plaintiffs allege that defendants violated the Act by
  representing a Nissan Quest as an import when the minivan was actually
  assembled in the United States.  Plaintiffs seek a new trial on the grounds
  that (1) the jury instructions misstated the law on consumer fraud; (2) the
  court erroneously allowed defendants to raise affirmative defenses for the
  first time at trial; (3) the court should have excluded testimony from a
  witness who was not disclosed as an expert before trial; and (4) the court
  erred by denying plaintiffs' motion for judgment as a matter of law. 
  Defendant Nissan North America (NNA) cross appeals the court's decision on
  NNA's petition for costs, granting NNA's request in part only.  We affirm
  the judgment for defendants, but we reverse and remand part of the trial
  court's award of costs to NNA.

       ¶  2.  The facts may be summarized as follows.  In August 1998,
  plaintiffs purchased a Nissan Quest minivan from Jerry's Nissan, Inc. to
  replace their Ford Taurus wagon with which they had become dissatisfied. 
  At the time of the purchase, the vehicle had a legally-required "Monroney"
  label affixed to it that stated in large bold lettering, "Three Years
  Running . . . #1 Import Minivan!"  Although price was ultimately the
  deciding factor in purchasing the Quest, plaintiffs wanted a Japanese-made
  vehicle, and they believed that the Nissan Quest fit that description.  

       ¶  3.  Eventually, the Quest developed a ticking sound in the blower
  fan, a sound identical to the one plaintiffs' old Taurus wagon made and
  that contributed to their decision to buy a new vehicle.  Plaintiff Neal
  Jordan began making inquiries about the origin of the Nissan Quest and
  discovered that it was manufactured and assembled in the United States
  through a joint venture between Nissan and the Ford Motor Company.  Many of
  the Quest's parts were identical to those used in Ford vehicles, although
  Nissan designed the Quest.  Nissan's facility in Japan also designed,
  engineered, and produced the tooling necessary to assemble the vehicle. 
  Nissan shipped that tooling from Japan to a facility in the United States
  where the Quest was ultimately assembled.
   
       ¶  4.  Believing they were deceived, plaintiffs wrote to Nissan
  officials asking that Nissan take the Quest back and return their purchase
  money.  After the request was refused, plaintiffs sued both NNA and Jerry's
  Nissan and tried the case by jury.  The jury returned special verdicts for
  both defendants, finding that neither had engaged in any deceptive act or
  practice.  The present appeal followed the trial court's denial of
  plaintiffs' motion for judgment as a matter of law.

       ¶  5.  Plaintiffs' claims against defendants arise under § 2453(a) of
  Vermont's Consumer Fraud Act.  9 V.S.A. § 2453(a).  The statute prohibits
  deceptive acts and practices in commerce, which a complainant must
  establish with proof of three elements: (1) the representation or omission
  at issue was likely to mislead consumers; (2) the consumer's interpretation
  of the representation was reasonable under the circumstances; and (3) the
  misleading representation was material in that it affected the consumer's
  purchasing decision.  Id.; Carter v. Gugliuzzi, 168 Vt. 48, 56,