Giles-Simmons v. Hyundai Motor Am.

SHARON GILES-SIMMONS v. HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA

No. 734

COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND

September Term, 2019

August 17, 2020

Circuit Court for Frederick County

Case No. C-10-CV-18-000528

UNREPORTED

Kehoe, Berger, Shaw Geter, JJ.

Opinion by Kehoe, J.

*This is an unreported opinion, and it may not be cited in any paper, brief, motion or other document filed in this Court or any other Maryland Court as either precedent within the rule of stare decisis or as persuasive authority. See Md. Rule 1-104.

This appeal arises out of the judgment entered in the Circuit Court for Frederick County in a civil action brought by Sharon Giles-Simmons against Hyundai Motor America, for breaches of written and implied warranties pursuant to the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, codified at 15 U.S.C. § 2301 et seq. Ms. Giles-Simmons raises four issues, which we have consolidated into two:

1. Did the circuit court abuse its discretion in granting Hyundai Motor's motion in limine to exclude the testimony of Ms. Giles-Simmons's expert witness?

2. Did the circuit court err in granting Hyundai Motor's motion for summary judgment?¹

We answer no to each question and will affirm the court's judgment.Background

Ms. Giles-Simmons's Experiences with her Hyundai Elantra

In May 2016, Sharon Giles-Simmons purchased a new 2017 Hyundai Elantra (hereinafter, "the vehicle") from Massey Hyundai in Frederick, Maryland. The vehicle came with a five-year or sixty-thousand mile bumper-to-bumper warranty as well as other standard warranties. Pursuant to the manufacturer's warranty, Hyundai Motor promised to "[r]epair or replace[] . . . any component originally manufactured or installed by . . . Hyundai Motor America (HMA) that is found to be defective in material or workmanship under normal use and maintenance."

On five occasions over the next nineteen months, Ms. Giles-Simmons brought the vehicle into Massey Hyundai for routine maintenance and other minor issues, such as a manufacturer's recall on a door handle. During this time, Ms. Giles-Simmons did not experience any issues with the vehicle's heating system.

That changed in December 2017 when Ms. Giles-Simmons noticed that the vehicle would not blow hot air out of two of the vehicle's four dashboard vents when the car was idling and the outside temperature was below freezing. For that reason, on December 14, 2017, Ms. Giles-Simmons brought the vehicle into Massey Hyundai. Ultimately, Ms. Giles-Simmons would bring the vehicle into Massey Hyundai and another Hyundai dealership five more times over the next several months for the same problem. A summary of each visit is outlined below.

December 14, 2017 (28,593 miles): Ms. Giles-Simmons complained that the "HVAC system, yesterday was blowing cold air, today blowing lukewarm air." The servicer noted that "[e]ngine temp won't go above 160 degrees" but that, once replacing the thermostat, the "engine went up to full operation temp." The servicer also noted that the vehicle had "no heat at idle" and so bled the cooling system.

December 18, 2017 (28,661 miles): Ms. Giles-Simmons complained of "poor or no heat" coming from the dashboard vents. The servicer indicated that "on first inspecting the heat was not very warm." The servicer elevated the vehicle and bled the cooling system. After performing the procedure, the servicer noticed that there was more heat coming from the vehicle than before the procedure, and that "the heat output is higher when driving and gets cooler at idle." Then, after performing a "special air pocket bleed procedure several times," the car had "[n]otable improvement." Finally, the servicer "performed [the actions recommended in the] cooling system bleed bulletin." [We discuss the "bulletin" in more detail below]. The servicer otherwise found no issues in the temperature blend mechanism in the HVAC box.

December 27, 2017 (29,067 miles): Ms. Giles-Simmons complained that the "vehicle has no heat." The servicer indicated that the engine temperature was "100 [degrees] at idle" but "rises to 135 [degrees]" when applying the accelerator. The servicer called the manufacturer and was instructed to perform the bleed procedure.

January 2, 2018 (29,282 miles): Ms. Giles-Simmons complained that "the heat is not getting hot." The servicer verified that the engine temperature was "90 degrees at idle, [but] increases to 150 degrees on highway," and that the lower radiator hose was cold regardless of the engine temperature. After calling the manufacturer's "techline," the servicer bled the cooling system and elevated the front of the vehicle overnight. In the morning, during a test drive, the engine temperature increased to 150 degrees when cruising, and 140 degrees at idle. During a longer test drive, however, the engine temperature dropped to 60 degrees at idle, and one of the radiator hoses dropped to 0 degrees. The servicer diagnosed the problem as "insufficient coolant flow at idle." In response, the servicer removed and replaced the water pump and added coolant. On a subsequent test, the vehicle's temperatures ran as normal.

February 5, 2018 (30,452 miles): Ms. Giles-Simmons brought the vehicle into Ideal Hyundai located in Frederick, complaining of the same heatingissue. The servicer indicated that there was "[n]o problem found" in the vehicle, that the heating system was operating "as other Elantras" do, and made no repairs. It did, however, bleed the cooling system again.

December 26, 2018 (45,570 miles): Ms. Giles-Simmons brought the vehicle to Massey Hyundai a final time, complaining of the same heating issue. The servicer inspected the vehicle and did not find any issues with it, but did conduct an update for the vehicle.²

As indicated on the December 18, 2017, service report, the servicer bled the vehicle's cooling system pursuant to the manufacturer's "bulletin." This technical service bulletin is titled "No or Limited Heat from HVAC @ Low Engine RPM's Bleed the Cooling System" and applies to 2017 Hyundai Elantra models, the vehicle owned by Ms. Giles-Simmons. After a servicer confirms there is an issue with a vehicle's HVAC system, the bulletin directs the servicer to "bleed the cooling system." Below the directions for the procedure is a "notes" section indicating, among other things, that (emphasis added): "[i]t is normal for some heat loss with lower engine speeds when the heater is being used at max blower speed;" that "[t]he Engine Temperature can drop up to 85°f at idle w/ blower on Max Heat, while in Heat or Defrost mode, in below freezing weather;" and that "[d]riving in 'Sports Mode' will increase the engine revs and help create heat."

In her deposition, Ms. Giles-Simmons explained that the air coming out of two of the four dashboard vents was not hot when: the vehicle is idle, the fan is turned to the "max" setting, and the outdoor temperature is below freezing. All of these factors must be presentfor the alleged heating issue to manifest itself. Ms. Giles-Simmons indicated that the air from the two dashboard vents became warm or hot when the car accelerates or when the fan speed is set to below the max setting at idle.

Ms. Giles-Simmons also testified that the dealership performed all of the repairs on her vehicle under warranty, and so did not charge her for any of the work; that the dealership provided a loaner vehicle to her, free of charge, each time she brought her vehicle in for repairs; and that she did not experience the heating issue with any of the loaner vehicles, which were the same make and model of her vehicle.³ Finally, Ms. Giles-Simmons testified despite the heating issue, she continues to drive the vehicle regularly, about 14 miles per day, 5 days a week.

The Litigation

On March 21, 2018, Ms. Giles-Simmons's counsel sent a letter to Hyundai Motor informing it of the alleged heating defect and demanding return of fifty percent of the vehicle's purchase price "as compensation for its diminished value due to its defect," as well as attorney's fees. When Hyundai Motor did not agree, Ms. Giles-Simmons filed the present action, asserting claims against Hyundai Motor for breach of express and implied warranties under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, codified at 15 U.S.C. § 2301 et seq.⁴

Discovery

Ms. Giles-Simmons enlisted the services of James Hetherington to act as her expert witness in the lawsuit. Based in Minnesota, Hetherington is an independent mechanic with over forty-two years of automotive experience. Hetherington did not inspect Ms. Giles-Simmons's vehicle himself. Instead, he hired another, Maryland-based mechanic, Ricardo Joachim, to inspect the vehicle, which Joachim did on January 27, 2019. Joachim wrote a report based on his inspection. Hetherington, who was not present for the inspection, concluded that "[i]t's my opinion that [the vehicle] has, at the time of sale, that it has a significant mechanical defect." His conclusion was based on Joachim's inspection report, as well as his own knowledge and experience.

In his deposition, Hetherington was asked to explain what exactly the specific mechanical defect is. Hetherington indicated that Joachim found that "the engine is not providing sufficient heat at low speed and based specifically when it comes to idle." When asked why the engine is providing insufficient heat, Hetherington replied (emphasis added):

Well, I don't know what the defect specifically is but I can say this, each engine has a thermostat that is supposed to regulate its temperature. So, if you have a 195-degree thermostat, that should bring your engine up there. . . . And this one seems to be excessively low temperature.

When asked if he thought the vehicle's thermostat is defective, Hetherington indicated: "I'm not saying specifically the thermostat is. There is a problem in the engine cooling system that is preventing it from providing sufficient heat at low speed, at idle."

Hetherington also discussed a "touch test" performed by Joachim, in which the latter felt the radiator hoses with his bare...