Defense Win
HWS Law Group
Summary Judgment Granted to Car Dealership in Defect Vehicle Litigation
On April 10, 2025, attorneys Meredith A. Sawyer and Bonnie J. Wolf of HWS Law Group were granted summary judgment on all claims against their client in Spokane Superior Court.
This matter arose from the purchase of a nine-year-old used truck from a dealership, located in Spokane, Washington. The truck was purchased in “as-is” condition and the plaintiff signed multiple documents attesting to the fact that the dealership had conspicuously disclaimed all express and implied warranties. About a week later, the truck experienced an engine failure. The third-party service contract plaintiff had purchased at the time of sale covered almost all of the cost of the engine replacement. Notably, this service contract explicitly stated it would not cover any pre-existing defects. The plaintiff alleged the truck had pre-existing defects and the dealership was aware of those defects at the time of the sale. He asserted claims for breach of contract, violation of the Automobile Dealer Practices Act (“ADPA”), RCW 46.70 et. seq., violation of the Consumer Protection Act (“CPA”), RCW 19.86, et. seq., breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, RCW 62A.2 et. seq., and negligence. Plaintiff sought damages in excess of $135,000.
Following discovery and depositions that contradicted the plaintiff’s allegations, defendant moved for summary judgment on all claims. As to the breach of contract claim, defendant argued that plaintiff was unable to show any contract term breached by the dealership. Specifically, there was no contract term which required the dealership to perform an in-depth mechanical inspection of the vehicle prior to its “as-is” sale. In regard to the ADPA and CPA claims, plaintiff was unable to show that the defendant dealership disseminated any false advertising regarding the vehicle or made any false or misleading statements to plaintiff regarding the vehicle. As to the implied warranty of merchantability claim, defendant was able to show that plaintiff knowingly and voluntarily waived the implied warranties and elected to purchase the vehicle in “as-is” condition. Additionally, the fact that plaintiff had purchased a third-party service contract indicated he knew there were no warranties being provided by the dealership. At oral argument, the Court appeared satisfied that plaintiff’s testimony stating he read through the sale documents with the dealership staff was sufficient to show that the waiver was “negotiated” as is required by Berg v. Stromme, 79 Wn.2d 184, 196, 484 P.2d 380 (1971). Finally, as to the negligence claim, Plaintiff was unable to establish that defendant owed the plaintiff any duty independent of the sales contract documents.
Defendant also retained an automobile mechanic expert whose testimony supported the dealership’s assertions that the cause of the truck’s engine failure would not have been able to have been detected during the pre-sale safety inspection that was conducted.
Judge Anderson granted defendant’s motion in its entirety. The plaintiff was represented by Eugene Bolin and Joseph Jordan, Law Offices of Eugene N. Bolin, Jr., P.S., Edmonds, Washington. Caldwell v. Camp Automotive, Inc., No. 23-2-03503-32.
On April 10, 2025, attorneys Meredith A. Sawyer and Bonnie J. Wolf of HWS Law Group were granted summary judgment on all claims against their client in Spokane Superior Court.
This matter arose from the purchase of a nine-year-old used truck from a dealership, located in Spokane, Washington. The truck was purchased in “as-is” condition and the plaintiff signed multiple documents attesting to the fact that the dealership had conspicuously disclaimed all express and implied warranties. About a week later, the truck experienced an engine failure. The third-party service contract plaintiff had purchased at the time of sale covered almost all of the cost of the engine replacement. Notably, this service contract explicitly stated it would not cover any pre-existing defects. The plaintiff alleged the truck had pre-existing defects and the dealership was aware of those defects at the time of the sale. He asserted claims for breach of contract, violation of the Automobile Dealer Practices Act (“ADPA”), RCW 46.70 et. seq., violation of the Consumer Protection Act (“CPA”), RCW 19.86, et. seq., breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, RCW 62A.2 et. seq., and negligence. Plaintiff sought damages in excess of $135,000.
Following discovery and depositions that contradicted the plaintiff’s allegations, defendant moved for summary judgment on all claims. As to the breach of contract claim, defendant argued that plaintiff was unable to show any contract term breached by the dealership. Specifically, there was no contract term which required the dealership to perform an in-depth mechanical inspection of the vehicle prior to its “as-is” sale. In regard to the ADPA and CPA claims, plaintiff was unable to show that the defendant dealership disseminated any false advertising regarding the vehicle or made any false or misleading statements to plaintiff regarding the vehicle. As to the implied warranty of merchantability claim, defendant was able to show that plaintiff knowingly and voluntarily waived the implied warranties and elected to purchase the vehicle in “as-is” condition. Additionally, the fact that plaintiff had purchased a third-party service contract indicated he knew there were no warranties being provided by the dealership. At oral argument, the Court appeared satisfied that plaintiff’s testimony stating he read through the sale documents with the dealership staff was sufficient to show that the waiver was “negotiated” as is required by Berg v. Stromme, 79 Wn.2d 184, 196, 484 P.2d 380 (1971). Finally, as to the negligence claim, Plaintiff was unable to establish that defendant owed the plaintiff any duty independent of the sales contract documents.
Defendant also retained an automobile mechanic expert whose testimony supported the dealership’s assertions that the cause of the truck’s engine failure would not have been able to have been detected during the pre-sale safety inspection that was conducted.
Judge Anderson granted defendant’s motion in its entirety. The plaintiff was represented by Eugene Bolin and Joseph Jordan, Law Offices of Eugene N. Bolin, Jr., P.S., Edmonds, Washington. Caldwell v. Camp Automotive, Inc., No. 23-2-03503-32.