Honda Claims It Was Not A Manufacturing Defect, Ordered To Pay 65% Of The Brand New ATV’s Value To Its Owner

Consumer Law attorney Peter Cozmyk of Krohn & Moss, Ltd., convinced the jury for a $4,000 damage award for diminished value on a $7,000 Honda ATV motorcycle to its owner, last week. A brand new Honda All Terrain Vehicle (ATV) started wearing its tires out within the first month of ownership and developed recurring problems from defective bearings. Honda refused to cover defective bearings under the warranty.

Within the first month of ownership of a brand new Honda All Terrain Vehicle (ATV) motorcycle, the customer’s joy of owning it started waning. The brand new All Terrain Vehicle (ATV) started showing serious signs of premature wearing on its tires. Honda did make two adjustments to the alignment, and fixed a set of new tires and rims on the motorcycle. With this, the Honda dealership washed their hands off the warranty on the tires. They informed the customer that tires were not covered under the warranty and declined to assist the customer any further. A second defect surfaced later on, in which the wheel bearings failed. Honda’s authorized dealership repaired the wheel bearing and determined it was defective. The ATV had to return to the Honda dealership a second time with the same issue. The Honda dealership refused to repair it. Honda claimed that they refused repairs because the bearing had been worn, without even taking a proper look at the defect. They did not subject the ATV to a critical appraisal. They did not even verify if it was a wear and tear item as opposed to a defect. Honda remained recalcitrant and refused to cover the wear and tear under the warranty and rejected diagnosis and repairs.

The customer took the ATV home in pieces and the case, to the Krohn & Moss, Ltd.. The main issue was that Honda was claiming abuse and we had no expert and so Peter’s back was up against the wall trying to convince the jury that Honda and the dealership technicians and Honda’s expert were wrong. Gregory H. Moss, founding partner, Krohn & Moss, Ltd. recalls.

Now it is in the hands of Krohn & Moss, Ltd. attorneys to prove Honda and the dealership technicians and Honda’s expert wrong. In the trial court, Honda continued to play blame game and pinned the problem on the customer. They were unflailing with their version, The customer has damaged the ATV by power washing it.They never ceased pointing fingers to the customer, The tire wear is the result of riding on pavement.

Honda’s selling and servicing dealership personnel were summoned to depose. Consumer Law attorney Peter Cozmyk while cross-examining them noticed one palpable common thread that ran through all their versions Honda has a policy that automatically denies coverage under the warranty if the customer complains of the same problem more than once. They all agreed in unison, The policy deterred verification when the ATV returned with problems from the second bearing.

Peter Cozmyk utilized the client’s testimony and Honda’s witnesses to convince the jury that it was not abuse but a manufacturing defect. It was not even the wear and tear that brought the ATV back to the dealership for repairs.

There were flat surfaces on the bearings.

Honda has further failed to prove the allegations of abuse, misuse of the ATV or neglect from the owner. The jury took serious exception to the calloused attitude of Honda towards its customer. They ordered Honda to pay 65% of the ATV’s value, a $4,000 damage award for diminished value on a $7,000 Honda ATV motorcycle to its owner.

Krohn & Moss, Ltd. Consumer Law Center® is pleased to comply with state regulations concerning client statements and testimonials:

In order for you to see our client video or read our client statements, please click the green button below. You will be taken directly to the video or client statements.

If you are interested in viewing information about the lawyer/firm’s past results and testimonials about the lawyer/firm, please read and acknowledge the information below.

The information in this section contains information about the lawyer/firm’s past results, testimonials about the lawyer/firm, and statements regarding the lawyer/firm’s quality. The information has not been reviewed or approved by Bar Associations of the states in which the law firm practices.

The facts and circumstances of your case may differ from the matters in which results and testimonials have been provided.

All results of cases handled by the lawyer/firm are not provided and not all clients have given testimonials.

The results and testimonials provided are not necessarily representative of results obtained by the lawyer/firm or of the experience of all clients or others with the lawyer/firm. Past results are no guarantee of future results. Every case is different, and each client’s case must be evaluated and handled on its own merits.

The testimonials or endorsements do not constitute a guarantee, warranty, or prediction regarding the outcome of your legal matter.