United States District Court, D. Arizona
G. CAMPBELL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Court held a bench trial on September 28, 2017. After
considering the evidence and arguments of the parties, the
Court will rule in favor of Plaintiffs.
purchased a used 2010 Infiniti QX56 from Defendant in August
2015. Defendant represented that the vehicle had 35, 648
miles. Plaintiffs paid $33, 359.75, consisting of $3, 000
down and the rest financed through a credit union.
drove the vehicle to their home in Iowa and took it to the
Willis Infiniti dealership for service. Plaintiffs assert
that the dealership informed them that the vehicle was
serviced in 2011 and had an odometer reading at that time of
more than 46, 000 miles. Plaintiffs immediately contacted
Defendant, and this disagreement ensued.
Court held on summary judgment that Defendant gave an express
warranty on the mileage of the vehicle, the express warranty
was not validly disclaimed in the parties' contract, and
Defendant breached the warranty because the mileage was
inaccurate. Doc. 124 at 8. As a result, the trial concerned
only Plaintiffs' alleged damages.
law provides that “[t]he measure of damages for breach
of warranty is the difference at the time and place of
acceptance between the value of the goods accepted and the
value they would have had if they had been as warranted,
unless special circumstances show proximate damages of a
different amount.” A.R.S. § 47-2714. The Court
held at the start of trial that Plaintiffs could not present
evidence of incidental and consequential damages because they
failed to disclose them as required by Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(iii)
and their failure was not substantially justified or
harmless. See Rule 37(c)(1).
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.
Court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of
law. The findings are based on the testimony and exhibits
presented during the trial, including credibility
odometer reading when Plaintiffs purchased the vehicle - 35,
648 - was not accurate. Defendant concedes that “[t]he
Vehicle has a mileage discrepancy.” Doc. 137-1 at 3.
The precise amount of the discrepancy is not known, but the
Infinity dealer told Plaintiffs in 2015 that the mileage
recorded for the vehicle in 2011 was 47, 731. Plaintiffs did
not attempt to place the dealer's service records in
evidence, but this fact was not seriously disputed at trial.
Indeed, Defendant's expert confirmed that he had seen the
dealer report that the vehicle had 47, 731 miles in 2011.
Court's Livenote Transcript at 89 (Infinity dealer report
“shows there's 47, 731 miles”). The Court
finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the vehicle had
approximately 47, 000 miles in 2011, four years before it was
purchased by Plaintiffs.
reasonable estimate of the vehicle's mileage in 2015 is
more than 100, 000 miles. Plaintiffs' expert testified
that 100, 000 was a conservative estimate. Defendant's
expert suggested that 17, 000 miles per year is a reasonable
expectation for a vehicle's mileage. Id. at 88
(“What we look at is the 17, 000 miles a year and if a
car has in excess of 17, 000 miles a year that's when we
start deducting for mileage. [If it] has less than 17, 000
miles per year that's when we start adding a value for
mileage.”). If Plaintiffs' vehicle was driven 17,
000 miles per year between 2011 and 2015, it would have had
more than 100, 000 miles in 2015 (17, 000 x 4 47, 000 =
2010 Infinity QX56 with unknown mileage would be worth less
than a 2010 Infinity QX56 in comparable condition with 35,
648 miles. A 2010 Infinity QX56 with more than 100, 000 miles
would be worth less than a 2010 Infinity QX56 in comparable
condition with 35, 648 miles. As a result, when purchased in
2015, Plaintiffs' vehicle was worth less than the $33,
359.75 they paid for it. Plaintiffs were injured by the
breach of warranty.
Although it is true, as Defendant argues, that damages must
be proven with reasonable certainty, Arizona law does not
require absolute certainty, especially when the fact of
injury is clear, as it is here. The Arizona Court of Appeals
has explained: “Once the right to damages is
established, uncertainty as to the amount of damages does not
preclude recovery.” Felder v. ...