Lawsuit: Kasper Toyota Scion Overcharges Customers, Improperly Denies Warranty Claims

New to ClassAction.org? Read our Newswire Disclaimer

A proposed class action alleges that Sandusky, Ohio car dealership Kasper Toyota Scion regularly sells vehicles for an amount substantially higher than their market value and advertised price.

Behind the case is a customer who purchased a used 2011 Toyota Corolla for $22,000 at an apparently significant markup. According to the lawsuit, the manufacturer’s suggested retail price (MSRP) for a brand-new Corolla is $17,175, and the dealership supposedly acquired the used car for just $12,000. Nevertheless, Kasper allegedly sold the car for a price “over and above” its worth.

Moreover, the suit, which names National Warranty Administration Network and National Automotive Experts as co-defendants, alleges the plaintiff was deprived of the purported benefits of her car’s warranty. Despite the warranty’s requirement that “all service must be performed at the selling dealer or a pre-authorized repair facility of your choice,” the plaintiff says the dealership often couldn’t provide her with an oil change appointment, resulting in a delay of service and eventual transmission failure that Kasper allegedly refused to cover. According to the lawsuit, Kasper denied the plaintiff’s warranty claim “for reasons that were simply made up to avoid paying the claim.”

Lastly, upon purchasing the car, the plaintiff was supposedly required to pay for what should have been optional features, including gap insurance. Gap insurance, the suit explains, is “designed to assure that the customer pays nothing in the event of a total loss.” After being involved in an accident that resulted in a total loss of the car, the plaintiff, however, incurred out-of-pocket costs that the insurance did not cover, the case says, as Kasper had charged the woman “a price substantially in excess of the Toyota’s value” when she purchased the car. The complaint argues the dealership knew the gap insurance it sold the plaintiff would not cover a total loss, yet falsely represented that she was required to purchase such protection.