Suing a Car Dealer for Selling a Car With Damage

New Jersey is a notice state which means there are very liberal pleading requirements for most claims BUT some specificity is required for fraud. The following is an example of a complaint that was filed against a car dealership in New Jersey.

CARTON AND RUDNICK 788 SHREWSBURY AVENUE BUILDING 2, SUITE 204 TINTON FALLS, N.J. 07724 732-842-2070 FAX: 732-879-0213
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS.
OUR FILE NO.:

James XXXXXX
Plaintiff,

Vs.
CHERRY HILL XXXXXX
Defendants. SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY LAW DIVISION MONMOUTH COUNTY

DOCKET No.

CIVIL ACTION
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY

1. On or about April 11, 2012, the defendant, Cherry Hill XXXXX, were corporations licensed to do business in the state of New Jersey.
2. On that date, the defendants were in possession of an automobile which was sold to the plaintiff. The vehicle was a 2008 Ford Expedition with 38,334 miles, vehicle identification number XXXXX.
3. The defendants previously acquired this vehicle either from (a) auction or (b) trade vehicle on a transaction.
4. It is asserted that the defendant has a set policy for inspecting the vehicles which they received either (a) from the auction or (b) on trade.
5. It is believed that the defendant, employees, technicians who have been specifically trained by the defendant dealer were certified technicians and have passed all of the relevant tests and have the appropriate qualifications to work for the defendants.
6. It is also asserted that the defendants’ employee used car manager who is experienced in valuing cars and observing damage on vehicles which are either (a) obtained from auction or (b) obtained on trade.
7. It is believed that both the employee technicians OR used car manager viewed or inspected the vehicle which was acquired by the defendants and ultimately sold to the plaintiff being the 2008 Ford Expedition.
8. It is asserted that the defendants upon their inspection of the vehicle created checklists and/or certain reports documenting their inspection.
9. It is believed that the defendants during their inspection of the vehicle by either the (a) used car manager or (b) technicians observed damage on this vehicle.
10. It is believed that the aforementioned individuals (a) used car manager or (b) technicians observed certain defects in the vehicle which would have alerted them to the fact that further investigation was required which would have revealed that the vehicle had been involved in an automobile accident.
11. It is also asserted that the defendants have access to AutoCheck.
12. It is also asserted that the defendants have access to Carfax.
13. It is also asserted that had the defendants accessed AutoCheck or accessed Carfax, they would have found out and discovered that the vehicle had been in an automobile accident.
14. It is asserted that as a result of the foregoing the defendants knew or should have known that the vehicle was in an accident and they should have made appropriate disclosures to the plaintiff because it is industry standards.
15. The defendants were aware that consumers rely upon information from the salesman and the dealer employees with regards to the condition of the vehicle.
16. It also asserted that the defendants’ salespeople are aware that if they advised plaintiffs or consumers that the vehicle has been in an accident, it is going to affect their purchasing decision.
17. In this case, the defendants affirmatively misrepresented the vehicle was not in an accident, knew that the vehicle was in an accident, failed to disclose same to the plaintiff, breached all applicable expressed and applied warranties resulting in an ascertainable loss to the plaintiff.
18. The defendants also committed acts of fraud because they intentionally and willfully lied to the plaintiff about the print and facts causing the plaintiff’s damages.
WHEREFORE, the plaintiff demands judgment against the defendants jointly and severally together with interest and costs of the suit with punitive damages.

COUNT II

1. When the plaintiff reasserts the previous facts as if set forth at length therein.
2. At all times hereinafter, John Does 1 through 100 are prior purchasers and/or were in possession of the vehicle, caused such damage and failed to make appropriate disclosures and/or advised the defendant Cherry Hill XXXXX and/or XXXX XXXXX the vehicle had been in an automobile accident. This constitutes fraud and consumer fraud resulting in damages to the plaintiff.

WHEREFORE, the plaintiff demands judgment against the defendants jointly and severally together with interest and costs of the suit.

DESIGNATION OF TRIAL COUNSEL

Pursuant to the provisions of Rule 4:25-4, the Court is advised that JONATHAN RUDNICK, ESQ., is hereby designated trial counsel.

CERTIFICATION

I hereby certify that, pursuant to R. 4:5-1(b)(2), this matter in controversy is not the subject of any other action pending in any Court or of a pending arbitration, nor is any action or arbitration proceeding contemplated.