Since 1995, Krohn & Moss, Ltd. has assisted thousands of consumers throughout the nation to confront the world’s automakers who fail to repair defects in new and used automobiles. Along the way, Krohn & Moss, Ltd. has tried hundreds of cases to verdict seeking to obtain recoveries for consumers under state and federal Lemon Laws. However, cases can be won or lost either before or after a case goes to trial. In some instances, automobile manufacturers incorrectly contend that they believe a consumer’s claims should not even make it to trial. In other instances, automobile manufacturers will contend that a jury’s verdict should be reversed or thrown out on appeal. Accordingly, it is important that you not only select a Lemon Law firm that has strong relationships with the automobile manufacturers so that you may try to quickly settle your case, but that you select a Lemon Law firm that is experienced to litigate your case to trial and to handle any appeals should they become necessary.
In addition to trying hundreds of Lemon Law claims to verdict throughout the nation, the attorneys at Krohn & Moss, Ltd. have extensive appellate experience and have favorably shaped the law for consumers throughout the nation. The attorneys at Krohn & Moss, Ltd. have successfully argued seven (7) landmark consumer appeals before the Supreme Courts of the States of Illinois, Indiana, Florida, and Wisconsin. They have also prevailed in more than one hundred (100) appeals that were decided before the Appellate Courts of the States of California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, Ohio, and Wisconsin.
Most recently, Krohn & Moss, Ltd. successfully handled the following four (4) landmark appeals, which all upheld the consumer’s right to obtain relief under state and federal Lemon Laws:
- On July 23, 2010 in Nelson Medina v. Ford Motor Company, 40 So. 3d 891, the Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal, issued a decision reinstating a jury’s verdict, which had found that Ford Motor Company violated the Florida Lemon Law for failing to timely repair Mr. Medina’s 2006 Ford Mustang. After the judge presiding over the case had thrown out the jury’s verdict awarding a Lemon Law refund to Mr. Medina, the attorneys at Krohn & Moss, Ltd. immediately appealed the decision. In a unanimous decision, the Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal determined that the judge presiding over the case improperly concluded that the attorneys at Krohn & Moss, Ltd. had not proven the existence of a defect in the Mustang. The Appellate Court reinstated the verdict, which entitled Mr. Medina to a refund of what he had paid for the vehicle, including all of his monthly payments while the case was on appeal. Additionally, the Appellate Court concluded that Mr. Medina was entitled to have his attorneys’ fees and costs paid by Ford Motor Company.
- On March 18, 2011 in Anne and Hobert Cox v. Kia Motors America, Inc., 2011-Ohio-1231, the Ohio First District Court of Appeals, issued a unanimous decision upholding a Hamilton County’s jury verdict finding in favor of Mr. and Mrs. Cox on their federal Lemon Law claims against Kia Motors America, Inc. After the attorneys at Krohn & Moss, Ltd. proved that Kia had breached its warranty given to Mr. and Mrs. Cox and had proven that they were entitled to damages as a result, Kia contended that the jury’s verdict was not supported by the evidence. Kia appealed the jury’s verdict, but the Ohio First District Court of Appeals disagreed with Kia. In successfully affirming the jury’s verdict, the attorneys at Krohn & Moss, Ltd. also obtained an award of attorneys’ fees and costs that Kia was required to pay Mr. and Mrs. Cox’s attorneys for their time and expenses handling the trial and appeal of the case.
- On March 24, 2011 in Edmund Mady v. DaimlerChrysler Corporation, 59 So. 3d 1129, the attorneys at Krohn & Moss, Ltd. successfully convinced the Florida Supreme Court to reverse a decision of a Palm Beach County judge who had denied Edmund Mady’s right to attorneys’ fees under the federal Lemon Law, also known as the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. After Mr. Mady had accepted Chrysler’s official offer of judgment in the amount of $8,500, the attorneys at Krohn & Moss, Ltd. who were not charging Mr. Mady for their time and expenses, filed a written motion with the Palm Beach County judge seeking reimbursement for the same. The Palm Beach County judge denied their request and an appeal ensued. Krohn & Moss, Ltd. first appealed the matter to the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal, but did not prevail. Undeterred, the attorneys at Krohn & Moss, Ltd. appealed the issue to the Florida Supreme Court. In finding that the federal Lemon Law entitled Mr. Mady to have his attorneys’ fees and costs paid by Chrysler, the Florida Supreme Court noted that “[i]t was the intent of Congress to provide consumers with an efficient and affordable mechanism to resolve warranty disputes that would not require consumers to incur substantial costs and expenses.” Through the successful efforts of the attorneys at Krohn & Moss, Ltd. consumers in the State of Florida have access to the courts and may feel confident that their attorneys’ fees will be paid separately by the automobile manufacturers.
- On June 28, 2011 in Vera Rastaedt v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, 63 So. 3d 41, the attorneys at Krohn & Moss, Ltd. successfully appealed to the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal a decision of the Palm Beach County Court dismissing Ms. Rastaedt’s case. The appeal involved a Complaint at Law filed by Krohn & Moss, Ltd. on behalf of Ms. Rastaedt which alleged that Mercedes-Benz failed to repair defects in her 2005 Mercedes-Benz SLK 350 despite being afforded a reasonable opportunity to do so. In response, Mercedes-Benz contended that it had no obligation to perform repairs in a “reasonable” time or manner and that Ms. Rastaedt’s Complaint failed to state a cause of action under the federal Lemon Law. The Palm Beach County Court agreed with Mercedes-Benz, but Krohn & Moss, Ltd. appealed the matter to the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal which reversed the County Court and in a unanimous decision. In doing so, the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal determined that automobile purchasers and lessees may bring suit under the federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act where an automobile manufacturer fails to repair a vehicle after being afforded a reasonable opportunity to do so.