You are welcome to follow case LACV016105 Muscatine County Iowa District Court, city of Muscatine, Iowa, clerk A.C. 563-263-5821, scheduled for pre trial conference in November 2007.
Please consider for public benefit publishing my letter regarding 1998 Cadillac Catera recall repairs failure and resulting consumer devastating legal fees when the dealer making recall repairs refuses vehicle owner to attend tear down inspection of destroyed engine when results of tear down determine if GM will assist pay for new engine or all expense is owners. GM determined the only dealer that could determine if damage to engine was from the timing belt recall was the dealer that did the recall repairs, which is or very close to illegal steering. So far my legal fees are over $ 45,000 and the dealership has moved the matter from District court, to Federal Court, now back to District Court, all after they refused to come to engine tear down at shop owner could be present in to determine cause and extent of damage.
All this happened when I was confronted with a $ 12,000 engine replacement after rods went through block after pistons hit valves, classic timing belt damage. This was four months after a dealership invoiced GM for the timing belt tensioner pulley recall. The independent shop that tore engine down determined invoiced new tensioner pulley was defective, had visible wobble in bushing and a catch in it. My engineer confirms this and has the part. Either the dealership did not replace tensioner pulley as shown on their invoice, or it failed again in the 12 months new part warranty. Because I refused to let dealership tear engine down without myself and a representative present to witness, the dealership refused to talk to me after tear down, and were sent certified letter advising of tear down, and refused to come. I had to file a lawsuit to force dealership and GM to talk to me, and even after that they refused until the court ordered them to respond. All this delay and court orders cost me more legal fees money. Normally when put on notice of claim and refuse to come to inspection, a party looses by default. In this case my home is now up for sale for legal fees. I wanted your readers to know how GM and dealerships operate within the law. I estimate GM and Krieger Motors, the dealership have spent well over $ 150,000 on attorneys, have a team of three lawyers, former GM design engineer experts, all over a $ 13,000 used Cadillac with a recall. I ended up trade the Catera in for $ 1000 with no engine. The dealership I have heard is operating on insurance money, and the strategy is to exceed the plaintiff’s resources till he is forced to give up. My attorney luckily has moved the case under Magnuson Moss Act, where GM and dealership will have to pay my attorney fees if they loose, a big risk for me, all resulting from dealership and GM refusing to come to tear down when invited by certified mail whereupon the matter should have been settled without any legal expense.
After GM attorneys put me through $ 30,000 of discovery, mostly questioning myself and the independent shop mechanic about findings that were in detailed tear down report with photographs that they could have had free if they attended tear down and saw findings, they settled for $ 5,000 and the dealership remains in the law suit. I had no choice but settle with GM as they claimed if not settle and go to trial would have to pay GM attorney bill if loose. It does not seem right you can refuse to come to a tear down then put the other party through $ 30,000 legal fees to find out what the tear down revealed, but that is the way our legal system is. It is almost like dealership does not have to be responsible in any manner and if you try to find facts you have to pay at least ten times the amount of loss. We spent about $ 10,000 in defending motions to dismiss that my experts were not accepted, there was no warranty because was no charges for the recall, other frivolous attempts for dealership to have case dismissed. My insurance company refused a comprehensive claim when two years after loss GM expert determined from box of parts after not seeing engine at tear down that engine failed due to detonation from bad gasoline, an insured peril. The dealership, after refused to come to tear down, two years after engine was torn down by independent shop, looked at parts in boxes and determined a rod bearing is cause of damage, not related to recall. Dealership attorney refuses to let us look at alleged bad rod bearing. I told my attorney I don’t want to go to court without seeing the bad rod bearing, as maybe I want to agree and we won’t need to go to court. But no motion to let us see it has been filed.
Read Next Complaint >>