The Ohio Supreme Court reversed an Appeals Court ruling last August, concluding customers of a Cleveland car dealership challenging a purchase contract that required dispute arbitration failed to prove they suffered injury or damage as a result of the provision, according to Court News Ohio.
Class members alleged violations of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act (OCSPA) by Ganley Chevrolet. Jeffrey and Stacy Felix contend the dealership offered them 0 percent interest to purchase the vehicle. The contract stated it was “not binding unless accepted by seller and credit is approved, if applicable, by financial institution” but included a clause requiring resolution of any dispute through binding arbitration. When the couple went back to sign the paperwork, they were informed they were only approved for a loan with 1.9% interest. They accepted the loan, only to have it later be denied. They were then offered a 9% loan. They rejected the loan and then sued. The lawsuits evolved into class actions.
The case went on for years. A trial court decided the arbitration provision violated the OCSPA and awarded $200 to each class action member. The dealership appealed, but the ruling was upheld by the 8th District Court. It was then heard by the Ohio Supreme Court.
No Injury Proven By Lawyers
The Chief Justice ultimately denied the award, ruling the class action members failed to prove injuries as a result of the provision. They effectively suffered no damages that would require litigation by an injury lawyer.
“Here, the class, as certified, fails because there is no showing that all class members suffered an injury in fact,” she reasoned. “The broadly defined class encompasses consumers who purchased a vehicle at Ganley through a purchase contract that contained the unconscionable arbitration provision. But there is absolutely no showing that all of the consumers who purchased vehicles through a contract with the offensive arbitration provision were injured by it or suffered any damages.”