PHILADELPHIA – A Philadelphia couple have settled claims with a local tire supplier and auto repair shop who they alleged had improperly conducted an oil change, leading to their vehicle later sustaining complete engine failure.
Virginia Rooney and Thomas Bramante of Philadelphia first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on Jan. 21 versus Mavis Tire Supply, LLC of Philadelphia and Mavis Tire NY, LLC, of Millwood, N.Y.
During the events in question, the plaintiffs owned a 2018 Ford Escape which, prior to Aug. 23, 2020, was in good working order and covered under the manufacturer’s warranty.
“On Aug. 23, 2020, plaintiffs took said Ford to defendants for a routine oil change, something defendants perform on a routine, daily basis and represent and advertise to the general public that defendants are capable of doing in a good and workmanlike manner. On said date, defendants did, in fact, perform an oil change on said Ford and in return, plaintiffs paid the sums demanded by defendants for such products and services,” the suit said.
“On Oct. 13, 2020, said Ford suffered catastrophic breakdown while being used for its designed and intended use, as a direct result of the negligence, recklessness and deficient workmanship of defendants, to wit, the oil filter installed by defendants became dislodged, which allowed all of the engine oil to leak out of the Ford while in use, causing the engine to seize, rendering the Ford unusable and unfit for its intended purpose.”
As a result of the above, the plaintiffs had their vehicle towed to the local authorized Ford dealership who diagnosed a complete engine failure, requiring its replacement at a cost of $6,384.96.
“Plaintiffs immediately contacted and notified defendants herein of same and communicated over time with defendants’ local representative, Stacy Stipanovic, Regional Training Manager for Mavis Tire; defendants, via Ms. Stipanovic, have refused to pay for same,” according to the suit.
“Defendants acknowledged and admitted to the negligence and wrongdoing, but only offered to repair the Ford with a used engine from a wrecked vehicle, which would void plaintiffs’ current, in-force, factory warranty on said Ford as well as diminish the value of the Ford, which is only two years old. Furthermore, defendants would only make such repairs if its own mechanics did the work; defendants refused to pay for or permit the authorized Ford dealership to install the new engine needed. Suffice to say, plaintiffs refused same.”
UPDATE
Without answering the complaint after nearly six months of litigation, the docket reported that an order from U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Petrese B. Tucker showed that the case had been settled on July 15. Terms of the settlement were not disclosed.
“Upon consideration of plaintiffs’ May 12, 2021 letter stating that this case has been resolved, it is hereby ordered and decreed that the above-captioned matter shall be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Local Rule 41.1(b). The Clerk of Court shall mark this case as closed for statistical purposes,” the order said.
Prior to settlement and for counts of violating the Magnusson Moss Warranty Act, the Uniform Commercial Code, the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, diminution of value, fraud, misrepresentation and deceit and negligence, the plaintiffs were seeking damages in excess of $75,000, plus compensatory damages, punitive damages, interest, costs of suit, attorney’s fees, any other damages allowed by law, plus a trial by jury.
The plaintiffs were represented by Brad S. Tabakin of Tabakin Wolfe, in Plymouth Meeting.
The defendants were represented by Warren F. Sperling and Alexander D. Torres of Bennett Bricklin & Saltzburg, in Philadelphia.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:21-cv-00280
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com