In an October 1, 2008 opinion in the case of Mayew v. Chrysler, LLC, the Honorable Peggy Ableman dismissed Plaintiff’s “lemon law” claims brought pursuant to Delaware’s Lemon Law and Delaware’s Consumer Fraud Act for failure, “as a matter of law…to establish a substantial impairment to the value, safety, or use of their Jeep, nor can they demonstrate any fraud, misrepresentation or concealment.” The court allowed plaintiffs to proceed on their claim pursuant to the Magnuson-Moss Federal Warranty Improvement Act.
The court disallowed Plaintiffs’ ASE master certified repair technician expert opinions on diminution of value to Plaintiffs’ Jeep as a result of the alleged defect and causation of the alleged defect because the expert’s, “opinion was not based on reliable methods.” The court cited to Delaware Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., in support of it’s opinion.
The court found that the defect alleged by Plaintiffs’, a malfunctioning tire air pressure warning light, did not “substantially impair the car’s value as Plaintiffs were still able to drive it a significant distance in the year they owned it.”
