CHRISTINE SHEILS VS. FCA US, LLC (L-1687-19, OCEAN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) ( 2021 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ." Although it is posted on the
internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-4293-19
CHRISTINE SHEILS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
FCA US, LLC,
Defendant-Respondent.
________________________
Submitted April 26, 2021 – Decided June 24, 2021
Before Judges Sabatino and Gooden Brown.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
Division, Ocean County, Docket No. L-1687-19.
Kimmel & Silverman, PC, attorneys for appellant
(Shawn M. Bachman, on the briefs).
Marshall Dennehey, attorney for respondent (Kevin M.
McKeon, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Plaintiff Christine Sheils appeals from the June 9, 2020 Law Division
order granting summary judgment dismissal of her breach of warranty complaint
to defendant FCA US, LLC. Plaintiff also appeals from the July 23, 2020 order
denying her motion for reconsideration. 1 Plaintiff's complaint alleged violations
of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Improvement Act (Magnuson-Moss Act), 15
U.S.C. §§ 2301 to 2312, stemming from her purchase of a new 2016 Jeep
Cherokee Sport that was manufactured and warranted by defendant.2 We affirm.
We recite the facts from evidence submitted by the parties in support of,
and in opposition to, the summary judgment motion, "giv[ing] the benefit of all
favorable inferences to plaintiff[]." Angland v. Mountain Creek Resort, Inc.,
213 N.J. 573, 577 (2013) (citing Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 142 N.J. 520,
523 (1995)).
On May 7, 2016, plaintiff purchased the Jeep Cherokee at issue from
Atlantic Chrysler Jeep Volkswagen Fiat (Atlantic Chrysler), an authorized Jeep
dealer in Egg Harbor Township. 3 As part of the purchase, plaintiff was issued
1
Although plaintiff's notice of appeal identified the July 23, 2020 order,
nowhere in her merits brief does plaintiff present any argument challenging the
reconsideration order. As a consequence, plaintiff has effectively waived this
argument on appeal. See Sklodowsky v. Lushis, 417 N.J. Super. 648, 657 (App.
Div. 2011) ("An issue not briefed on appeal is deemed waived.").
2
Plaintiff's complaint also alleged violations of the New Jersey Lemon Law,
N.J.S.A. 56:12-29 to -49. However, plaintiff voluntarily withdrew those claims.
3
The contract price of the vehicle was $28,593.
A-4293-19
2
various warranties for the vehicle. Pertinent to this appeal, plaintiff was issued
(1) a three-year/36,000-mile "Basic Limited Warranty" (basic warranty); (2) a
"Corrosion Warranty"; and (3) a five-year/60,000-mile "Powertrain Limited
Warranty" (powertrain warranty).
The basic warranty covered "the cost of all parts and labor needed to repair
any item on [the] vehicle when it left the manufacturing plant that [was]
defective in material, workmanship or factory preparation." The "only
exception[s]" were "tires and [u]nwired headphones." The basic warranty
specified that plaintiff would "pay nothing for these repairs" as the "warranty
repairs or adjustments – including all parts and labor connected with them –
[would] be made by [the] dealer at no charge, using new or remanufactured
parts."
The basic warranty lasted "for [thirty-six] months" from the date of
purchase4 or for "36,000 miles on the odometer, whichever occur[red] first."
However, the following items were "covered only for [twelve] months or for
12,000 miles on the odometer, whichever occur[red] first":
brakes (rotors, pads, linings, and drums);
4
The basic warranty described the start date as either "the date [the purchaser
took] delivery of the vehicle; or the date when the vehicle was first put into
service – for example, as a dealer 'demo' or as a FCA US company vehicle,"
"whichever [was] earlier." The former applied to plaintiff's vehicle.
A-4293-19
3
wiper blades;
clutch discs or modular clutch assemble (as equipped);
windshield and rear window; and
wheel alignment and wheel balancing.
The corrosion warranty covered
the cost of all parts and labor needed to repair or replace
any sheet metal panels that get holes from rust or other
corrosion. If a hole occurs because of something other
than corrosion, this warranty does not apply. Cosmetic
or surface corrosion – resulting, for example, from
stone chips or scratches in the paint – is not covered.
The corrosion warranty started when the basic warranty began. However, the
corrosion warranty had two "time-and-mileage limits." "For sheet metal panels,
the limit [was thirty-six] months, with no mileage limit." "For an outer-body
sheet metal panel – one that is finish painted and that someone can see when
walking around the vehicle – the limits [were five] years or unlimited miles on
the odometer, whichever occur[red] first."
Finally, the powertrain warranty covered "the cost of all parts and labor
needed to repair a powertrain component . . . that [was] defective in
workmanship and materials." Powertrain components included the "[e]ngine,"
"[t]ransmission," and "[f]ront [w]heel [d]rive." Manual transmission clutch
parts were not covered. The powertrain warranty lasted "for up to [five] years
A-4293-19
4
or 60,000 miles on the odometer, whichever occur[red] first, calculated from the
start date of the [basic warranty]. . . ."
At her deposition, plaintiff testified that in October 2018, she began to
notice that "[t]he front driver's floor . . . was getting wet" to the point where
there was water on the soles of her shoes when she drove the vehicle. She
testified that she started "driving with a towel" that she "used . . . to absorb the
water" so that "[her] foot wouldn't slip on the gas and brake." As a result,
plaintiff arranged to drop off the Jeep Cherokee at Atlantic Chrysler to fix the
leak. When the vehicle was dropped off on December 6, 2018, it had 55,488
miles on its odometer.
After being informed that the vehicle was ready for pickup, plaintiff
returned to the dealership on January 12, 2019, and, prior to inspecting the
vehicle, paid $266.30 for the repairs. However, when plaintiff inspected the
vehicle, she observed the "towel . . . [she] had been using [while driving] to sop
up the water . . . frozen to the mat" on the floor of the vehicle. According to
plaintiff, the mat "was soaking wet and frozen with ice all over" and "the towel
was still in a bundle" on the floor. After plaintiff complained, she was issued
an immediate refund of the $266.30 she had paid and left the vehicle at Atlantic
A-4293-19
5
Chrysler with the understanding that the dealership would continue to work on
the car until it was fixed.
The Jeep Cherokee remained at the dealership from January to June of
2019. Atlantic Chrysler paid for plaintiff's rental car for about "[forty-five] or
[sixty days]" during that period. While the vehicle was at the dealership,
plaintiff had various phone conversations with Atlantic Chrysler's sales
manager, during which plaintiff was informed that "[t]hey couldn't fix the car,"
"[t]hey couldn't find the problem," and "they were not able to locate the source
of the leak." Plaintiff was also told that "they had to . . . get Chrysler involved"
because there was a manufacturing defect.
On June 14, 2019, plaintiff picked up the Jeep Cherokee. Plaintiff
acknowledged that the sales manager informed her that because the vehicle had
over 55,000 miles on the odometer, it was "out of warranty." According to
plaintiff, although the manager "never used the word goodwill," she eventually
learned she would not be responsible for the repairs despite the expiration of the
warranty. The invoice signed by plaintiff when she picked up the vehicle
confirmed that the repairs were performed at "[n]o [c]harge" to plaintiff as "one
time goodwill assistance offered to customer for satisfaction purposes."
(Changed from all caps). The service record for the repairs performed from
A-4293-19
6
December 6, 2018 to June 14, 2019, indicated that Atlantic Chrysler resealed
the fender, the cowl cover, and rocker seams; cleared the rocker drains; sealed
the body seams; and replaced the carpet.
After picking up the vehicle, plaintiff began having problems with the
brakes that she had never experienced before. She also observed "mold" on the
"front left mat" and the "seatbelt" on the front passenger side, as well as "rust"
on "a pipe" "behind the gas [pedal]." According to plaintiff, the pipe "was
totally rusted out with a hole in it from corrosion." Plaintiff testified that,
initially, the manager was reluctant to work on the vehicle again. However, on
June 24, 2019, he had the vehicle towed to Atlantic Chrysler for repairs, which
were completed on July 23, 2019. The service record for that period indicated
that the front and rear brake pads and rotors were replaced, the "right outer
seatbelt assembly" was replaced, and the "interior bolts" were sanded and
sprayed with rust repellant. When plaintiff picked up the vehicle, once again,
she did not have to pay for any of the repairs.
Atlantic Chrysler submitted claims to defendant for the repairs to
plaintiff's vehicle, including the water leak and brake repairs. Although the
claim forms indicated that the "[c]laim [t]ype" was "[w]arranty," the
A-4293-19
7
reimbursements to Atlantic Chrysler from defendant were described as "Special
Services LOPS; Goodwill Administration; Goodwill Authorization."
Plaintiff testified that after picking up the vehicle from the dealership in
July 2019, she continued to have problems with the vehicle. She stated that
although the dealership fixed the water problem on the driver side of the vehicle,
she now has water on the "[r]ight front passenger [side]," but "[n]ot to the extent
it was on the left [side]." Plaintiff never brought the vehicle back to Atlantic
Chrysler for further repairs but continued to make monthly payments for the
vehicle throughout the entire time period.
On July 3, 2019, plaintiff filed a complaint against defendant asserting
claims under the Magnuson-Moss Act for manufacturing defects in her vehicle,
failure to comply with express and implied warranties, and ineffective repair
attempts despite plaintiff affording defendant a reasonable number of
opportunities. The complaint alleged that "as a result of the ineffective repair
attempts[,] . . . the vehicle [was] rendered substantially impaired, unable to be
utilized for its intended purposes, and [was] worthless to plaintiff." Plaintiff
sought "judgment . . . in an amount equal to the price of the . . . vehicle, plus all
collateral charges, incidental and consequential damages, reasonable attorneys'
fees, and all court costs."
A-4293-19
8
Following the completion of discovery, defendant moved for summary
judgment, arguing there was no warranty violation because the basic warranty
had expired when plaintiff first brought the vehicle into the dealership for repairs
and the repairs were performed at no charge to plaintiff as a matter of customer
goodwill. Plaintiff opposed the motion, asserting she met the threshold elements
to prevail on her Magnuson-Moss Act claims because the repairs were covered
by other warranties that came with the vehicle purchase, defendant classified
them as such, and defendant failed to complete the repairs within a reasonable
amount of time.
After conducting oral argument on June 5, 2020, the motion judge entered
an order on June 9, 2020, granting defendant summary judgment and dismissing
plaintiff's complaint with prejudice. In the accompanying statement of reasons,
the judge recited the undisputed material facts and applied the applicable
standards and principles of law, including viewing the evidence in the light most
favorable to plaintiff. The judge concluded that based on the undisputed
material facts, defendant was entitled to summary judgment "as a matter of law"
because there was no applicable warranty covering plaintiff's reported
complaints regarding the vehicle and "the evidence presented [was] so one-sided
that it [did] not require submission to a jury."
A-4293-19
9
Specifically, the judge explained that the basic warranty did not apply
because plaintiff did not notify the dealer until the vehicle had over 55,000 miles
on the odometer and the basic warranty was limited to 36,000 miles. As to the
other warranties at issue, the judge reasoned that there was
no evidence in the record that shows that either the
issues [p]laintiff complained about or the repairs made
to fix the issues were covered by the Corrosion and
Powertrain Limited Warranties. Plaintiff did not
complain of any corrosion or issues with the powertrain
components, and the service reports indicate that no
work was done on such. Withstanding any
determination of whether the warranties were full and
therefore subject to the standards of the [Magnuson-
Moss] Act, the warranties would not be available to
[p]laintiff for her breach of warranty claim under the
Act because they did not cover the subject issue.
The judge also rejected plaintiff's claim that under the Magnuson-Moss
Act, specifically 15 U.S.C. § 2301(6)(B), "[d]efendant created an applicable
written warranty" by indicating on the repair orders that "the repairs were
claimed under warranty." According to the judge,
the documents also indicated the repairs were made
under "goodwill", and [p]laintiff was notified of such
and authorized the repairs. Hence, the evidence instead
shows that [d]efendant and the dealership considered
the June and July 2019 repairs to be without warranty
coverage and that [d]efendant paid the dealership for
the repairs out of customer "goodwill." Plaintiff fails
to provide or point out evidence that establishes a
genuine issue of fact regarding whether [d]efendant
A-4293-19
10
may be found liable under the [Magnuson-Moss] Act
for the June and July 2019 repairs. For the [c]ourt to
hold otherwise could expose manufacturers to damages
when they perform goodwill repairs after a warranty
expires, and in effect discourage manufacturers from
performing such goodwill repairs.
Thereafter, plaintiff moved for reconsideration of the June 9, 2020 order,
which was ultimately denied on July 23, 2020, for failure to "demonstrate that
the court's decision was based upon a palpably incorrect or irrational bas is or
that th[e c]ourt either did not consider, or failed to appreciate the significance
of the probative, competent evidence." See Cummings v. Bahr, 295 N.J. Super.
374, 384 (App. Div. 1996). This appeal followed.
On appeal, plaintiff raises the following contentions for our consideration:
I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING
SUMMARY JUDGMENT BECAUSE THERE WAS
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT'S
FAILURE TO FULFILL ITS WARRANTY
OBLIGATIONS WHICH IT ATTEMPTED TO
COVER-UP AS "GOODWILL."
II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING
SUMMARY JUDGMENT BECAUSE IT
IMPROPERLY WEIGHED THE EVIDENCE AND
FAILED TO GRANT ALL FAVORABLE
INFERENCES TO THE NON-MOVANT. (NOT
RAISED BELOW).
III. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING
SUMMARY JUDGMENT BECAUSE DEFENDANT
A-4293-19
11
WAS ESTOPPED FROM DENYING WARRANTY
REPAIRS.
IV. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING
SUMMARY JUDGMENT BECAUSE "GOODWILL"
AND "WARRANTY" ARE NOT MUTUALLY
EXCLUSIVE.
V. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING
SUMMARY JUDGMENT BECAUSE THERE WAS
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF UNREASONABLE
AND INEFFECTIVE WARRANTY REPAIRS.
We review a grant of summary judgment applying the same standard used
by the trial court. Steinberg v. Sahara Sam's Oasis, LLC, 226 N.J. 344, 366
(2016). That standard is well-settled:
if the evidence of record—the pleadings, depositions,
answers to interrogatories, and affidavits—"together
with all legitimate inferences therefrom favoring the
non-moving party, would require submission of the
issue to the trier of fact," then the trial court must deny
the motion. On the other hand, when no genuine issue
of material fact is at issue and the moving party is
entitled to a judgment as a matter of law, summary
judgment must be granted.
[Ibid. (citations omitted) (quoting R. 4:46-2(c)).]
Summary judgment may not be defeated when the non-moving party
merely points to "any fact in dispute." Brill, 142 N.J. at 529. Moreover,
"conclusory and self-serving assertions by one of the parties are insufficient to
overcome the motion." Puder v. Buechel, 183 N.J. 428, 440-41 (2005) (citations
A-4293-19
12
omitted). Rather, to defeat summary judgment, the non-moving party must bring
forth evidence that creates a genuine issue as to a material fact. Brill, 142 N.J.
at 529.
When determining if a genuine issue of material fact exists, courts must
determine "whether the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require
submission to a jury or whether it is so one-sided that one party must prevail as
a matter of law." Brill, 142 N.J. at 533 (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby,
Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 251-51 (1986)). "Of course, there is in this process a kind
of weighing that involves a type of evaluation, analysis and sifting of evidential
materials. This process, however, is not the same kind of weighing that a
factfinder . . . engages in when assessing the preponderance or credibility of
evidence." Id. at 536.
If there is no genuine issue of material fact, we must "decide whether the
trial court correctly interpreted the law." DepoLink Ct. Rep. & Litig. Support
Servs. v. Rochman, 430 N.J. Super. 325, 333 (App. Div. 2013) (quoting
Massachi v. AHL Servs., Inc., 396 N.J. Super. 486, 494 (App. Div. 2007)). We
review issues of law de novo and accord no deference to the trial judge's legal
conclusions. Nicholas v. Mynster, 213 N.J. 463, 478 (2013).
A-4293-19
13
Measured by this standard, we agree with the judge's determination that
there were no disputed issues of material fact and defendant was entitled to
summary judgment as a matter of law. Plaintiff maintains that there was
"sufficient evidence . . . to conclude that [d]efendant is liable under the
[Magnuson-Moss Act] for breaches of express and implied warranties" and "for
failing to live up to its obligations to effectively repair these defects within a
reasonable time under their . . . warranties." According to plaintiff, because
"[t]he paperwork for all these repairs . . . reflect that the repairs were covered
under warranty and paid for by [d]efendant," the "[c]ourt should not be fooled
by [d]efendant's attempt to mislabel these warranty repairs as 'goodwill' on
subsequent documents."
"The Magnuson-Moss Act is the federal statute that sets forth guidelines,
procedures and requirements for warranties, written or implied, on consumer
products." Temple v. Fleetwood Enters., 133 F. App'x 254, 268 (6th Cir. 2005).
"[A] consumer who is damaged by the failure of a supplier, warrantor, or service
contractor to comply with any obligation under . . . [the Act], or under a written
warranty, implied warranty, or service contract, may bring suit for damages and
other legal and equitable relief" in any competent state or federal court. 15
U.S.C. § 2310(d)(1).
A-4293-19
14
Under the Act, "written warranty" is defined as:
(A) any written affirmation of fact or
written promise made in connection with
the sale of a consumer product by a
supplier to a buyer which relates to the
nature of the material or workmanship and
affirms or promises that such material or
workmanship is defect free or will meet a
specified level of performance over a
specified period of time, or
(B) any undertaking in writing in
connection with the sale by a supplier of a
consumer product to refund, repair,
replace, or take other remedial action with
respect to such product in the event that
such product fails to meet the
specifications set forth in the undertaking,
which written affirmation, promise, or undertaking
becomes part of the basis of the bargain between a
supplier and a buyer for purposes other than resale of
such product.
[15 U.S.C. § 2301(6).]
An "implied warranty" under the Act is defined as one "arising under State law
. . . in connection with the sale by a supplier of a consumer product." 15 U.S.C.
§ 2301(7).
To establish an actionable claim of breach of warranty or violation under
the Magnuson-Moss Act, a plaintiff must demonstrate that "(i) the item at issue
was subject to a warranty; (ii) the item did not conform to the warranty; (iii) the
A-4293-19
15
seller was given reasonable opportunity to cure any defects; and (iv) the seller
failed to cure the defects within a reasonable time or a reasonable number of
attempts." Temple, 133 Fed. Appx. at 268; see 15 U.S.C. § 2304(a)(1).
"Ultimately, the applicability of the . . . Act is directly depend[e]nt upon a
sustainable claim for breach of warranty." Temple, 133 Fed. Appx. at 268.
"Thus, if there exists no actionable warranty claim, there can be no violation of
the . . . Act." Ibid.
Here, plaintiff failed to present competent evidence that her complaints
about the vehicle were covered by any warranty. If the complaints or repairs
were not covered under warranty, there can be no violation of the Act. To that
end, it is undisputed that plaintiff's complaints were reported when the vehicle
had over 55,488 miles on its odometer, well beyond the 36,000-mile limit of the
basic warranty. Further, none of the complaints or repairs involved a powertrain
component that was subject to the powertrain warranty.
Additionally, plaintiff presented no evidence, expert or otherwise, that
holes were created in sheet metal panels from rust or other corrosion to fall under
the corrosion warranty. Without support, plaintiff asserts that because "[t]he
fender, cowl, and rocker sheet metal are notoriously prone to corrosion and rust
holes," a "reasonable inference follows that the holes that needed to be resealed
A-4293-19
16
in the fender, cowl, and rocker seams were caused by rust or other corrosion,
and were thus required to be repaired under [d]efendant's corrosion warranties."
However, such conclusory and unsupported statements are inadequate to defeat
summary judgment. See Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of N.J. v. State, 425
N.J. Super. 1, 32 (App. Div. 2012) ("Bare conclusory assertions, without factual
support in the record, will not defeat a meritorious application for summary
judgment.").
Plaintiff also argues that "[d]efendant breached the implied warranty of
merchantability for the sale of the [v]ehicle." To establish an implied warranty
of merchantability claim with respect to a motor vehicle, a plaintiff must prove
that the vehicle was not "fit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are
used." N.J.S.A. 12A:2-314(2)(c). The ordinary purpose for which a car is
intended is transportation. Here, plaintiff failed to prove that the vehicle was
not merchantable because she drove the car for 55,488 miles before reporting a
problem.
To support her claims, plaintiff points to documents provided by
defendant that refer to the repair work as "warranty." However, plaintiff's
position is undermined by the fact that defendant indisputably paid the
dealership for the repair work as goodwill assistance offered to the customer for
A-4293-19
17
satisfaction purposes, a fact acknowledged by plaintiff when she picked up the
vehicle on June 14, 2019.
Equally unavailing is plaintiff's contention that "[d]efendant is estopped
from denying the applicability of the warranty" because of defendant's
"ratification, designation and payment." Estoppel is an equitable doctrine
"designed to prevent injustice by not permitting a party to repudiate a course of
action on which another party has relied to his detriment." Marsden v.
Encompass Ins. Co., 374 N.J. Super. 241, 249 (App. Div. 2005). "To establish
equitable estoppel, plaintiff[] must show that defendant engaged in conduct,
either intentionally or under circumstances that induced reliance, and that
plaintiff[] acted or changed [her] position to [her] detriment." Ibid. (citing
Miller v. Miller, 97 N.J. 154, 163 (1984)).
Here, there is no evidence that defendant or the dealership engaged in
conduct or made a representation to plaintiff indicating that the repairs were
covered by warranty or that plaintiff relied on such conduct or representation to
her detriment. On the contrary, plaintiff acknowledged during her deposition
that when she picked up the vehicle on June 14, 2019, the sales manager
informed her that she would not be responsible for the repairs despite the fact
that there was no warranty coverage.
A-4293-19
18
Because plaintiff failed to establish that the reported complaints and
repairs were eligible for warranty coverage, her claim under the Magnuson-
Moss Act must fail. To the extent we have not addressed a particular argument,
it is because either our disposition makes it unnecessary, or the argument was
without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-
3(e)(1)(E).
Affirmed.
A-4293-19
19