Opinion ID: 3010578
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: facts

Text: Suber purchased the Dodge van from Cherry Hill Dodge (the dealership) on April 28, 1993.2 Prior to Suber's purchase, Kontinental Koaches, Inc., a third-party defendant, renovated the van, installing new seats, carpeting, upholstery, a sofa, and other accessories. The sticker price of the car, with these improvements, was approximately $29,895.00. Almost immediately after taking possession, Suber discovered problems with the van, especially its suspension. In particular, the van had a tendency to bottom out, even on relatively smooth road surfaces. Suber avers that he returned the van to the dealer at least four times over the course of several months. When he returned the van on May 10, 1993, he complained of the bottoming out, as well as a harsh ride, steering drift, and other defects. One week later, on May 17, 1993, he complained about the van's 1 The facts are drawn from Suber’s complaint, Suber’s deposition testimony, and the briefs and accompanying exhibits submitted pursuant to Chrysler’s motion for summary judgment. 2 It is unclear from the record whether Cherry Hill Dodge is owned by Chrysler or is privately owned. 3 suspension, steering, brakes, driver's seat, rear door handle, electrical system, and the running boards. The dealership told Suber that nothing was wrong with the van, but balanced the tires. Because the problems with his van persisted, Suber returned to the dealership on June 9, 1993 with the same complaints. The dealership serviced the van, by aligning the front end and balancing the wheels, but again told Suber that there was nothing wrong. A few weeks later, on or around June 25, 1993, the van bottomed out so severely that it caused one of the front tires to go flat. Suber had the tire replaced on his own, without returning to the dealership. On June 28, 1993, Suber filed a claim with the Customer Arbitration Board (CAB), an informal dispute resolution body established by Chrysler under the New Jersey Lemon Law, N.J.S.A 56:12-36. Pursuant to CAB procedures, a Chrysler representative, George Bomanski, and a dealership employee inspected and road tested the van. According to Suber, both men told him that there was a problem with the van's suspension. However, the official report filed by Bomanski stated that the suspension system was fine. By letter dated August 5, 1993, the CAB found that Suber's complaint regarding the suspension was groundless, and it denied Suber's request for a refund of the purchase price because the use, value and safety of [the] vehicle has not been substantially impaired.3 3 The CAB did rule that Chrysler was responsible for repairing the door panel, handle, and exterior trim, and performing an oil usage test. It also ruled, however, that the 4 According to Suber, the suspension problems persisted through July 1993. The van failed Pennsylvania motor vehicle inspection at that time because of its suspension, including obviously compressed front springs. Additionally, Suber claims that he returned the van to the dealership on two occasions when the dealership did not supply him with a copy of the repair invoice. On July 16, 1993, Suber again left the van with the dealership for service. This appears to be the same day that he met with Bomanski and the dealership employee for the CAB inspection. The dealership told him that it would contact him when the repairs were completed. On August 16, 1993, having heard nothing, he called and was informed that his van was not yet ready. He went to the dealership and found his van parked in the back lot. The dealership's repair invoices show that the last work on the van was performed on July 22, 1993. Subsequent to Suber's last repair attempt, Chrysler sent to owners of 1993 and 1994 Dodge Ram Vans and Wagons, including Suber, a Customer Satisfaction Notification. This notice informed these Dodge owners that the front coil springs on their vehicles needed to be replaced: The service is needed to prevent the front suspension from bottoming out when traveling over rough surfaces. Without the service we are offering, the vehicle identified on the enclosed form may exhibit a harsh ride or suspension noises. We ask that you arrange for this important service without delay. other alleged defects either did not exist or were not the result of a Chrysler manufacturing defect. App. 305A. 5 In conjunction with this notice, Chrysler sent to its dealers a Technical Services Bulletin dated September 3, 1993 that detailed the repair work necessary to correct suspension problems like those experienced by Suber. Suber contends that his van's suspension is defective to this day, and that the van has never passed the Pennsylvania inspection. A mechanic retained by Suber's counsel inspected the car on March 2, 1995 and found that the suspension system was in an extremely dangerous condition and that the car was unsafe to drive. In response, Chrysler points out that Suber has continued to drive the van. At the time of the CAB inspection in July 1993, the van had 5057 miles on it. When a Chrysler representative road tested the van on March 13, 1995, it had 16,514 miles on it. The Chrysler representative concluded that the van has no suspension problems.