Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

Crown fighting vehicle ID suit

The Florida Chamber of Commerce supports the car dealer's opposition of class-action status in a case about ID etchings.

By HELEN HUNTLEY
Published July 8, 2006

A class-action suit against Crown Auto Dealerships of St. Petersburg is resurrecting an old controversy over vehicle ID etching services.

On Friday, the Florida Chamber of Commerce sided with Crown to oppose class-action status for the case, filed in federal court in Tampa.

"One of the issues threatening the livelihood of Florida's small businesses is the current system of class-action litigation," the chamber said in a motion seeking to file a "friend of the court" brief in a case.

The lawsuit, filed in 2004 and certified as a class action in March, is one of several in which appeals are pending over lower courts' decisions to grant class-action status to people suing car dealers.

The underlying issue - which has yet to come to trial - is the way etching and accompanying antitheft protection were sold.

"It's a worthless product, and the only way you could get people to buy it was to slip it into the deal," said Tampa lawyer Craig Rothburd, who is pursuing the case against Crown. He said VIN etching on a car's windows costs about $40 and the insurance backing the antitheft protection was worth only pennies. The conditions for claiming the $1,000 or $5,000 payment if your vehicle was stolen were so restrictive that Crown never had to pay a theft claim.

Buyers paid $595 or $695 for the protection, known as "TracGuard," which Crown said included other types of warranties on which claims have been paid. Between 1,000 and 2,000 Crown customers who bought TracGuard since 1999 will be part of the lawsuit if class-action status holds.

Crown no longer sells the product, which fewer than 7 percent of its customers bought, and Rothburd said that dealerships that continue to sell VIN etching now must use state-approved disclosure forms.

"The way the state requires it to be sold now is what we're saying should have been done along," Rothburd said.

The lawsuit claims those old methods omitted required disclosures, amounted to unfair trade practices and unjust enrichment, and customers should get their money back.

"The allegations don't have any merit," said Jim Myers, Crown's chief operating officer. "We've been established in this area for over 37 years. We employ 600 people and we do business the right way."

Auto dealers thought they got immunity to such lawsuits in a bill that passed the Legislature last year affecting VIN products purchased before April 2002. Crown argued as much in asking U.S. District Judge James D. Whittemore to dismiss the case.

Whittemore denied the motion, saying the new law merely limits the damages that can be awarded in those suits rather than preventing the suits from being brought.

Tampa lawyer Chris Coutroulis, who represents Crown, said that issue will be raised again in the trial.

In the meantime, the focus is on whether the case deserves class-action status.

"This suit is an example of class-action litigation gone too far," Coutroulis said. "Crown believes it's been driven by the lawyers hoping to earn a large attorney's fee."

Helen Huntley can be reached at hhuntley@sptimes.com or 727 893-8230.

[Last modified July 8, 2006, 00:52:44]