In a class action suit almost two decades long over a faulty brake system in a long-discontinued Kia vehicle, the Supreme Court reinstated a trial court’s decision that plaintiffs who lacked proof of actual costs incurred for repairs couldn’t recover damages.

In Little v. Kia Motors America, the court said “aggregate proofs”—versus actual costs—weren’t enough. Justice Anne Patterson said the plaintiffs fell short on their burden of proof, lacking evidence of what they actually spent on repairs for the faulty brake system, and the appellate court ruling left them open to receiving an undeserved “windfall.”