An owner of a 2010 Cadillac CTS Sport Wagon that won a lemon law case against General Motors is now on the receiving end of GM’s legal department.
According to WSB-TV in Georgia, the vehicle’s owner, Patrick Morse, won his lemon-law case in 2014. General Motors, instead of abiding by the arbiter’s ruling, is leveraging a little-known law to appeal the ruling in the courts. The appeal process has left Morse with a troublesome car for the last two years — and there’s a possibility it could continue for years to come.
Morse’s vehicular issues began just days after he purchased the Cadillac.
“I bought the car on a Friday, and it was seen in the dealership Monday when it would not start,” Morse told investigative reporter Jim Strickland. “It’s averaging at least one visit per month to the dealership since I’ve owned it.”
After numerous visits, Morse, representing himself, took GM to the lemon law arbitration board — and won. Now General Motors is appealing that decision in the courts.
Victories are most often won by complainants in Georgia, according to the Georgia Department of Law. General Motors has appealed those victories more than any other automaker since 2014.
Morse must now hire a lawyer to represent him in court to keep in place the original ruling. Even if Morse wins in court, General Motors could keep the legal lemons rolling, says lemon-law expert Alex Simanovsky.
“My concern for Mr. Morse is if we win in Forsyth County, they may appeal to the court of appeals and it may go on,” Simanovsky told WSB-TV.
Correction: The original headline stated GM is suing Patrick Morse, but it’s actually appealing the decision by the lemon law arbitration board. We’ve updated the headline to better reflect this. [h/t Gary Gastelu]
Quality is job #1 over at GM, huh?
That’s Ford’s slogan. Also related: try to avoid purchasing a Job 1 vehicle.
What does that terminology mean, again? Someone told me once, but I’ve forgotten.
at least with DCX and Ford, “Job #1” or “J1” is considered the start of volume production of a new model or model year as far as the program timing is concerned.
Within a week of buying our new 2011 Fiesta the (manual) transmission started to hop out of gear in R. The dealer tried a fix. When that didn’t work they told us to start lemon proceedings because it being a new model it would take them 3 months to get a new transmission for it. We instead told them we would wait. After putting about 4K miles on their loaner we got our car back. 94K miles later no other non wear and tear problems to report.
The “Quality is Job 1” slogan was omnipresent in Ford advertising for nearly 16 years and the basis of much of Ford’s US media buys for radio & TV for the early & mid 1980’s. For some serious link following, see below. Kind of surprised no one had already responded to Kyree’s post.
http://www.autonews.com/article/20160629/RETAIL03/160629819/robert-cox-ad-man-behind-fords-quality-is-job-1-pitch-dies?X-IgnoreUserAgent=1
Job 1 Ford owner here, can confirm that’s sound advice.
Shout out to all the Z06 owners with overheating issues!!!
That, too? I thought it was just factory oil contamination, followed by rod snappage.
Yeah, there’ve been some heat-soak issues with the LT4.
Just curious….would not a HELLCAT with its supercharged engine, also have a heat soak issue if it was driven at the same level as a Zo6 on a track. I know the idea of such an overweight vehicle on a track is kind of mirth-inducing, but still…inquiring minds want to know….
Brakes would fail first. That saves the engine from heatsoak limp mode:(.
Few things:
On the passenger-side there coolant reservoir serves the supercharger’s charge cooler/heat exchanger circuit and is divorced entirely from the engine’s regular coolant circuitry and reservoir. 104F for the supercharger coolant circuit and 194 for the larger cooling system. I’m not aware of such issue with the Z06—but I’ve never studied the vehicle up close.
The vents in the hood (Charger/Challenger) are on the cars for engine bay cooling as well as preventing front end lift. They do not feed air into the supercharger circuit.
Chrysler has taken the cars out to a 3 mile road course for 20+ laps—the engines did not de-rate due to cooling issues. Ambient temperature was 100F and that was a set performance target by Chrysler. The first item above is why the HELLCAT does not have issues with power de-rating when on the track.
Chrysler has tested the cars with the ZF 8 speed as well as the 6 speed manual; both of them do not have heat cooling issues. From what I’ve read with the Corvette most of the issues stem from cars with the automatic transmission—-GM has gone on record to say that they don’t expect the automatic cars to be tracked and when left in “D” thermal limitations are reached faster than on manual cars. I would say as well that GM’s performance target of 86F ambient is a shade bit low. (Again HELLCAT was targeted at 100F ambient). I’ve read that the front license plate bracket blocks airflow to the engine on the Corvette–which is another contributor. It doesn’t explain on why these cooling issues were not found during GM’s testing of these cars. It’s beyond me on how they let cars get delivered to customers that would overheat on 1-2 hot laps.
If he started a GoFundMe, he could afford this effort.
His experience sounds like my 05 Odyssey, which broke the morning after I bought it. The hellish ownership lasted 20 months, ending with a lemon law victory and a small check. But I went through a contingency firm to do it, rather than attempting it myself.
GM will find that it’s cheaper to simply refund his money.
GM builds enough lemons to know exactly what it is fighting for.
Cool. If they want to play stupid games, give ’em stupid prizes. Go thermonuclear on ’em!
Find an ambitious, TV-loving legal shark and run up a big-ass tab on GM. Pimp this story in the press relentlessly. Sic Nancy Grace, Bill O’Reilly and even frickin’ Jim Cramer on their sorry ass. Recover damages, expenses and a good-sized chunk of GM’s good will out of the deal.
Justice delayed isn’t the same thing as justice denied. Serve up GM legal on a silver platter and enjoy!
Totally agree; he should find a way to go all out.
+1
The court of public opinion is a powerful force in the age of social media.
There are pluses and minuses for that, but a definite plus in this case.
Also, I would start tagging DW in everything if I were that guy.
“The court of public opinion is a powerful force in the age of social media.”
that can be a good thing, and a bad thing.
Here is the thing though, this guy bought the car with 28000 miles, and the dealer called it a “dealer demo”. This was not a new car by any stretch. If anything, I suspect there are dealer shenanigans at work here, and GM is ultimately paying the price. In Georgia, they must consider a car with 28000 miles to be “new” if it is labeled as a dealer demo. Most states do not feel the same.
Interestingly, a friend of mine bought a used SRX some time ago, this one was also some sort of dealer special. He had to budget $350.00 per month for the repair bills, not to mention his time.
So, a somewhat defective automobile combined with dealership shenanigans and what sounds like a bad service department results in the above…
quite possible. like I said elsewhere, Steve Lehto did a podcast where he described Chrysler having to buy back a Ram pickup because the dealer didn’t disclose that the wheels had been stolen and the truck dropped on the ground prior to delivery to the buyer.
because fox news fights for the rights of the average man? seriously?
@probert: Not as a rule, but they can never resist a shot at Government Motors.
Alliances are fluid at times of war …
“Victories are most often won by complainants in Georgia, according to the Georgia Department of Law.”
This sounds like the Georgia arbitrators don’t rule based on the facts, but side with the small guy in the fight. GM really has no option but to appeal all of them in hopes of receiving a more honest outcome in court. There appears to be a problem with the law in Georgia.
Unlike Tesla, which can justifiably blame its customers for inattentive driving, I don’t see how GM has much of a defense when their product can’t stay out of the repair shop.
Whether the Georgia legal system is broken is another, unrelated matter.
weeeellll… most lemon laws say you can seek relief if the car has been out of service for a particular number of days, OR if they’ve made 4 unsuccessful attempts to repair the same defect.
so it’s possible an incompetent dealer service center could trigger a buyback simply because they couldn’t fix the problem.
Why do some people identify so fully with soulless corporations rather than with everyday people? Of course the arbitrator would find for the complainant more often. Do you imagine people go the lemon law route for pleasure? Most surely have lemons. It has to be documented in arbitration. For GM to take it to court is just a power game the little guy will lose at, even if he wins.
Interesting conclusion, Jeff. No, I don’t imagine people go the lemon law route for pleasure. They go because they know that the arbitrator is going to side with them no matter what. If Georgia wants this to stop they could simply change the law that allows GM to appeal. Corporations survive by using any rule or law that keeps the stockholders happy. I don’t identify with large corporations, but I understand how they work and choose my battles wisely. I would never be the boss of GM because I think they should fire some lawyers and use the money to buy back lemons and figure out how to make a better car.
“Victories are most often won by complainants in Georgia…” is not the same as “the arbitrator is going to side with them no matter what.”
Most often implies more than 50% but not an overwhelming majority,as the wording would have been “almost invariably win” or some such.
From the wording used I’d say that consumers win @ 60% of the time
Many Americans grew up believing in, “What’s good for GM is good for the country”. This sentiment was extended to most large corporations. I’ve got an elderly neighbor who believes that any negative talk of GM is near treasonous, and he’s convinced that Obama tried to destroy his favorite car maker.
I remember back when the Chevy Monza 2+2 was new, that an owner of an orange one here in Dallas, fed up with being blown off by the dealer (now-closed Steakley Chevrolet) and Chevrolet, hired a sign painter to paint giant lemons all over the car. The lemons had lettering inside them, detailing all the problems with the car, along with the name of the dealer. She eventually got a buyback.
Bring back the ducks!
I believe this is why DW has not been around , he won the suit and is now in hiding
I’m speculating that a Cadillac & lemonade are not to the “winners” liking. Now he will find out just how many bugs he likes in his warm lemonade. Only limits are the depths of his wallet.
Car was a three year old dealer demo, he paid 28k for a car that was 47k new but because it was never registered it was considered a new car. It sounds like he is trying to make a 20k profit on a well used car.
That’s ridiculous. It was worth what he paid for it.
If the dealer could have gotten $47k from someone else, they would have, and that also means he can’t get $47k out of it, either.
Besides, the price has nothing to do with their lemony car.
At what purchase price would you consider a vehicle exempt from lemon laws?
Has nothing to do with purchase price; rather it is determined by a length of time after taking delivery of a NEW vehicle. Around here, it is 1 year after taking delivery, but that varies.
Either way, this was not a new vehicle. It was a few years old and had 28000 miles. The buyer took a gamble on a used “demo” car, lost, and now feels GM is responsible. This will be an interesting suit to follow. In my opinion, this one falls on the dealer more than anything.
I don’t see why you think GM would care. They sold the car to the *dealer,* not this guy. What the dealer sold it for is of no interest to GM.
GM has spent the last four decades trying to scoop their reputation out of the gutter, investing billions to do so. It baffles me why GM would continue to pursue this in front of the court of public opinion. Geez, bite the bullet, cut the guy a check, and spend those legal savings on building a better product out of the gate.
what “legal savings?” any company the size of GM has full-time legal staff who they’re paying no matter what. Lemon law claims are usually pretty easy for the buyer to win, so if they’re fighting this one then they think they have good reason to.
Of course they don’t actually give a fig about the legal costs. That’s peanuts for GM. The point I was making is the cost in damage to their already fragile reputation. You’d think until they earn themselves a Honda-like brand image (which may take decades), the smart move would be to pay out unhappy customers citing the lemon law and keep it hush-hush.
It’s not like there’s a waiting list for people wanting a new CTS. As if people need another reason to check out a Lexus dealership instead.
Every case has a marginal and opportunity cost. Do you think one of those GM legal staffers lives in Georgia and shows up to court for just their salary? No travel or lodging fees?
And the full time staff could do other things rather than litigate this case like figure out why a supplier going bankrupt put GM’s factories over the fire. That’s the opportunity cost. ]
And don’t discount the bad publicity. This story is in the news. Quality is as much about perception as actual quality. How do you think this impacts peoples’ perception of GM quality?
If there’s no opportunity cost because the legal department has a lot of people sitting idle then there’s another problem.
“If there’s no opportunity cost because the legal department has a lot of people sitting idle then there’s another problem.”
I was about the post the same thing regarding opportunity cost. GM pursuing this case so vigorously only to keep its legal staff busy sounds like textbook “Old GM”.
If you think GM is fighting this case simply to give its legal staff “something to do,” then I don’t know what to say to you. because that is the dumbest thing I’ve heard today. lucky for you it’s 7 a.m. so there’s plenty of time for you to be outdone.
“If you think GM is fighting this case simply to give its legal staff “something to do,” then I don’t know what to say to you”
That was sarcasm pointed at your moronic assertion that the cost for GM to fight low-value legal cases is essentially zero because, in your less than wise words, “GM has full-time legal staff who they’re paying no matter what.”
I never said it was “zero.”
The fact that GM is choosing to appeal, rather than just suck it up, makes me wonder if maybe there isn’t something else going on here. Perhaps the Caddy owner is out of touch with reality.
no. it’s solely because Government Motors is evil. That’s the only possible explanation.
From the story:
“I’m not sure why they’re picking this fight. I suspect they don’t like the fact that Mr. Morse got such a good deal on this vehicle.”
The sticker was more than $47,000. But Morse only paid $28,000.
The Cadillac was a 3-year-old dealer demo, but legally a new car.”
The article says he had trouble with the tail lights, sunroof and windshield, plus tranny problems. I bet the tail lights were the cracked top tab issue, which allows them to come away from the body slightly. I’d also bet the sunroof must’ve been the clogged drain tube grommets causing leaks inside the cabin, which was always misdiagnosed as trouble with the roof itself. I’m not so sure this car is a lemon.
It doesn’t really manner if it’s defective from a fundamental standpoint, or if the issues are easily-remediable; thee law protects consumers when those issues are recurring, and when automakers (or their agents) are unwilling or unable to rectify them.
Steve Lehto did a podcast about a lemon law buyback he handled; it was for a Dodge truck which had a vibration at speed that the dealer couldn’t fix after repeated tries. Turned out that after the truck was delivered and sitting on the lot, someone stole the wheels and dropped the truck on the ground, messing up the suspension. The dealer just slapped on new wheels/tires and delivered the truck.
So Chrysler ended up having to buy back a vehicle that was damaged by an external party.
“I’m not so sure this car is a lemon.”
Well, the court declared that it was.
My Honda actually had about 7 problems, but the faulty sliding door became the only thing admissible in PA lemon court. Here, they require the fault to remain broken after 3 attempts to repair it in the first year. I don’t know Georgia’s law.
Regardless, GM will lose this one in the court of public opinion.
““I’m not sure why they’re picking this fight. I suspect they don’t like the fact that Mr. Morse got such a good deal on this vehicle.””
I doubt that; GM doesn’t know or care what a customer pays when they buy a car. GM’s customer is the dealer. It’s immaterial to them what the dealer sold the car for.
Hey that’s the spirit, way to take care of your customers!
BS like this is why I will never purchase an American car, disgusting.
“American” has nothing to do with it. My lemon brand was a Honda, and nearly a VW (at the same time, yay!).
Did Honda fight you past a lemon law judgement like GM does? If they did, then you have a point. If not, you might be the next customer GM is looking for.
Those darn American manufacturers. My dad purchased a Ford pickup back in the 80’s. A month later, the oil dropped out of it (all at once) on a trip and wrecked the motor. Ford gave him a new truck.
His next three vehicles were Fords.
If the car was a demo, it probably had next to no mileage. My boss bought a 3 year old demo BMW. It had 695 miles on it.
GM made a lemon. Why is that so bad to say? He’s not going to get more than he paid. He simply doesn’t want to spend his time getting it fixed over and over.
This. Every mfr makes a bad example once in a while. Just say you’re sorry and refund the guy’s money.
Good Lord – this is Volkswagen-level stupidity. Your “luxury” brand is failing – so you draw national attention to poor quality by suing over an issue virtually nobody had heard of until today. I estimate GM will lose at least twenty times in new Cadillac sales what it would have cost to provide this fellow with a new, replacement Cadillac.
Spot on John.
Eighteen years ago GM treated me badly on two new vehicles with numerous quality problems.
Since then I have spent approximately $170,000 buying vehicles and not one has been a GM.
I also steer my family and friends away from them.
A couple times a year I test drive a Sierra, Yukon or Acadia. After running the crap out of it, I return it to the dealer and say it is very nice and I’d think it over, a big smile on my face.
Well gosh, the complainants should usually win. If they didn’t have any issues, no one would be suing GM or any other automaker. It’s one thing to build and sell a crappy car. That’s to be expected from time to time by any automaker. But it’s how these defective cars are handled that makes all the difference. GM is completely stupid to have let this issue get to the point that this article was ever written. GM needs to show the world that they are not the same loser company that they used to be. This isn’t helping.
Maybe I’m missing something but his GM experience seems to be totally normal.
When I was a kid a local man bought a Cadillac diesel (yes, I’m old). Anyway, for those of you who don’t know about Cadillac’s now infamous diesel experiment, Google and learn. This man was not happy with his car and demanded a full refund. GM refused. They offered to replace the diesel engine in his car with a gas engine. There were no ‘Lemon Laws’ in Jersey at the time. Instead the unhappy Caddy owner painted “GM Makes Defective Cars” on the sides and back of the car. He also made up some fliers detailing his car’s woes and handed them out to anyone who was interested. A local newspaper wrote a story and GM’s legal department lost its shiat, sent this man a ‘cease and desist’ threatening to sue him back to the stone age. This got a lawyer involved who took the case pro bono and one of the local TV news stations picked up the story. Few weeks later GM took back the car and the owner got a check from GM for the full amount.
The dealer is likely the problem. If he was treated well he would have likely given them a break or just traded the thing in. Nobody wants to go through this kind of hassle. They just want a reliable vehicle, Honda and Toyota have amassed quite a following doing just that. My last Chevy in 1990 was an example of that. When my children needed cars, I steered them away from Chevy too.
Thank you GM for reminding me why I’ll never purchase another one of your vehicles. GM free since 2003 !!!
I’ve purchased gm since 2003 when the motor blew on a AMG C32. $30,000 for a hand assembled motor that luckily was under warranty.
Enter 2004 Cadillac CTS-V and I have never looked back. They offer the most for less like no other manufacturer.
Not sure why dealerships can’t replace a engine or transmission component or a electrical wiring harness.
Mr. Stevenson,
There’s a bit more to this story that you’re not reporting to your readers. Lemon laws are for new cars. In Georgia, legally, this is considered a new car but as I understand it, it was a three year old dealer demo and had close to 30,000 miles on it.
Why not include this information in your post? Surely you know that when people hear lemon law they think new car.
If you’re going to report, then report.
It is a new car doesn’t need to be of 0 mileage and 0 year old.
The fact that the car is ruled to be a lemon is enough of a proof that car is new. Otherwise the case would have been thrown out.
Legally, I agree. In my opinion, the other information is relevant and was omitted.
When I think new car, I don’t think three years old and 30,000 miles.
Additionally, what’s the age and mileage range for a typical dealer demo? By how much does this car fall out of that range?
I feel like the headline and the piece didn’t include certain information because there’s a good chance that the response would’ve been more muted.
If there are mitigating circumstances, lay them on the table. Don’t keep them behind a veil.
I fail to see why would anyone choose to buy a GM, especially post bail-out.
The sucker got what he deserved: a crappy car and a waste of time.
And what’s up with his daughter thinking she could just prance around in such a short skirt, without getting raped?
That’s not a good analogy. No one forced the guy to make the purchase.
It’s more like the girl with the short shirt went to a nightclub, found a sweet talking bankrupt dude, married him and then fought a bitter divorce battle.
Blaming the victim takes many forms.
As long as the deal is legal and consensual, i.e. not a rape or robbery or murder, I wouldn’t call any party “victim”.
“I fail to see why would anyone choose to buy a GM, especially post bail-out.”
There’s a relatively simple way of finding out. Ask.
Every time I start thinking domestic cars might be worth looking at again something arises to blow the thought away. The Detroit Three, it seems, are slow learners.
If it’s dealer shenanigans, then it should be another nail in the coffin for new car dealership retail model.
Without passing on the validity of this guy’s claim….
Car dealers, and Car makers, are a very hard target, legally. They have limitless money and time. You have a big investment that doesn’t work, a job you have to work, and at this point, some mis-handling by a franchisee. You want this fixed correctly now…and they don’t care.
They know that x percent of the cars have defects. No matter how hard you try, you will sell a few lemons…and conversely, there are folks who got Olds Diesels and Chevy Vegas that ran perfectly….
The other problem is that the car is used…and the company will always blame the owner for the result.
Attorney’s letters don’t scare car dealers..the only real leverage you have is, if right after sale, you can get them to rescind (before making a payment) and bring the lender in….Dealers don’t want problems with the lender.
Their attorneys are already on retainer, so there is zero cost to run you into the ground. You won’t find contingency for these cases, so the fight tends to be limited to folks who already have money…you’ll get more blowback from Caddy, BMW and Audi buyers than cheap car buyers. Those cases get a cost no object defense from the Car makers/dealers, because they don’t want anyone to set a precedent.
The next time someone proposes raising the small claims limits in your area, note who will come out against it…the insurance companies, and your local car dealers, through a trade organization. The LAST thing they want is local folk before a local judge in a user friendly forum. Keeping small claims low allows a lot of nonsense to occur as things over small claim have to go to a higher court…with higher costs and attorney required.
The writer/editor’s knowledge of the law seems to match GM’s knowledge of engineering.
You don’t “take someone to court” if you appeal an arbiter’s decision.