Chrysler to pay more than $33,000 for "lemon".

LOS ANGELES--(AutomotiveWire)--Nov. 4, 1996--A Riverside jury awarded Mr. & Mrs. Todd Wollam of Corona, Calif., $33,109.60 for a defective 1994 Jeep Grand Cherokee.

The verdict was reached on Oct. 28, 1996, in Riverside Superior Court, Dept. 15, with the Honorable Gary B. Tranbarger presiding.

Mr. & Mrs. Wollam were represented by Berta Peterson-Smith, of Taylor & Hodges, Glendale, Calif. Chrysler Corp. was represented by Matthew M. Proudfoot of Genson, Even, Crandall & Wade, Irvine, Calif.

Chrysler was ordered to refund the Wollams' purchase price plus the loan interest on the Jeep Grand Cherokee for violation of the California Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, commonly known as the "Lemon Law."

Shortly after purchase, at 295 miles, the Wollams returned their vehicle for repairs for a leaking transmission. After this repair, the Wollams experienced ongoing problems with the transmission leaking, oil leak, abnormal noise and vibration from the rear of the car, transmission hesitating and shifting slow, humming noise at high speed, and air leak from the passenger side of the windshield.

The most troubling problem, the noise and vibration at high speed, was first noticed by the Wollams on a trip to Las Vegas shortly after purchasing the vehicle. Mr. Wollam returned the vehicle numerous times for repair, asking the dealership to take a test drive to verify the problem.

Eventually, Chrysler took the position that the problem did not exist at all, since the vibration and noise could be felt or heard only at speeds in excess of 80 miles per hour. Mr. Wollam was told to return the vehicle if the noise could be heard at slower speeds. The dealership performed no other inspections to determine the cause of the vibration and noise.

Eventually, Mr. Wollam had the vehicle inspected at an independent facility and was told that the driveline was defective. Fearing that the driveline would fail, creating a catastrophic accident, the Wollams parked the vehicle in December of 1994.

In a meeting on July 27, 1994, between Mr. Wollam and Chrysler representatives, Mr. Wollam demanded restitution, which Chrysler denied. By letter on Sept. 11, 1994, the Wollams once again requested restitution which was denied. A third request for restitution was made on Oct. 7, 1994, which was also denied by Chrysler.

Suit was filed against Chrysler under the California Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. The Act entitles consumers to their choice of a refund or a replacement vehicle. To qualify, the problem must substantially impair the use, value or safety of the vehicle and the consumer must have allowed the manufacturer a reasonable opportunity to repair the problem.

CONTACT: Taylor & Hodges, Glendale

Bill Blokzyl, 818/244-3905