verdicts and settlements
()

Court and Case No.:

C.P. Montgomery County No. 2015-07800.

Judge:

Joseph P. Walsh.

Type of Action:

Consumer Protection.

Injuries:

Push-button ignition defect.

Plaintiffs Counsel:

Kristen N. Spinale; David J. Gorberg & Associates, Ardmore.

Defense Counsel:

Robert B.B. Schatz; Getson & Schatz; Philadelphia.

Plaintiff’s Expert: Philip Sprague, automotive; Bensalem.

Comment:

At the end of 2015, plaintiff Joseph Zuritsky leased a 2015 Audi S6 sedan for $51,320.60, in Montgomery County. He claimed that, within a month or two of leasing the car, he began experiencing issues with the push-button ignition-starting mechanism. Specifically, it took several attempts of pushing the start button before the car’s engine activated. On three occasions, he had taken the car for inspection at an Audi dealership, but no problem with the ignition was found.

Zuritsky sued car-manufacturer Audi of America Inc., alleging it violated the Pennsylvania Lemon Law, the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, and the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law. Zuritsky’s expert in automotive engineering started and stopped the car five times, and on the fifth time he had trouble starting the sedan, even though it started after a couple of minutes. Based on the testing, the Audi vehicle was defective, the expert concluded.

Audi’s expert in automotive engineering opined that there was nothing wrong with vehicle and that the S6′s inability to start was due to user error. Instead of pushing the button and holding it down until the car started, Zuritsky tapped the start button in a staccato-like fashion, thereby preventing the engine from activating, according to the expert.

Audi’s counsel cited the S6′s computer system, which registers a code if there is some sort of malfunction with the vehicle (e.g., the speedometer, the torque converter, or the starter). The code will indicate why it was set and what part of the vehicle was affected which prompted the code. If the start button of Zuritsky’s S6 malfunctioned as he alleged, a code would have been initiated; however, there was no such code, Audi’s counsel maintained.

Zuritsky sought to have Audi repurchase the S6 at full value or provide a refund of the amounts he spent or would spend on lease payments. His expert determined that the S6 sustained a 16 percent depreciation in value.

The jury took two hours to deliberate and found in favor of Audi and against Zuritsky on his claims of Pennsylvania Lemon Law, the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, and the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law.

Court and Case No.:

C.P. Montgomery County No. 2015-07800.

Judge:

Joseph P. Walsh.

Type of Action:

Consumer Protection.

Injuries:

Push-button ignition defect.

Plaintiffs Counsel:

Kristen N. Spinale; David J. Gorberg & Associates, Ardmore.

Defense Counsel:

Robert B.B. Schatz; Getson & Schatz; Philadelphia.

Plaintiff’s Expert: Philip Sprague, automotive; Bensalem.

Comment:

At the end of 2015, plaintiff Joseph Zuritsky leased a 2015 Audi S6 sedan for $51,320.60, in Montgomery County. He claimed that, within a month or two of leasing the car, he began experiencing issues with the push-button ignition-starting mechanism. Specifically, it took several attempts of pushing the start button before the car’s engine activated. On three occasions, he had taken the car for inspection at an Audi dealership, but no problem with the ignition was found.

Zuritsky sued car-manufacturer Audi of America Inc., alleging it violated the Pennsylvania Lemon Law, the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, and the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law. Zuritsky’s expert in automotive engineering started and stopped the car five times, and on the fifth time he had trouble starting the sedan, even though it started after a couple of minutes. Based on the testing, the Audi vehicle was defective, the expert concluded.

Audi’s expert in automotive engineering opined that there was nothing wrong with vehicle and that the S6′s inability to start was due to user error. Instead of pushing the button and holding it down until the car started, Zuritsky tapped the start button in a staccato-like fashion, thereby preventing the engine from activating, according to the expert.

Audi’s counsel cited the S6′s computer system, which registers a code if there is some sort of malfunction with the vehicle (e.g., the speedometer, the torque converter, or the starter). The code will indicate why it was set and what part of the vehicle was affected which prompted the code. If the start button of Zuritsky’s S6 malfunctioned as he alleged, a code would have been initiated; however, there was no such code, Audi’s counsel maintained.

Zuritsky sought to have Audi repurchase the S6 at full value or provide a refund of the amounts he spent or would spend on lease payments. His expert determined that the S6 sustained a 16 percent depreciation in value.

The jury took two hours to deliberate and found in favor of Audi and against Zuritsky on his claims of Pennsylvania Lemon Law, the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, and the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law.