News

Superior Court Affirms $5.6 Million Verdict Against Kia Motors

The Superior Court of Pennsylvania has upheld a $5.6 million verdict in a memorandum opinion against Kia Motors, but ruled the trial judge must explain why he awarded $4.1 million in attorney fees.

The $5.6 million Philadelphia Common Pleas Court class action verdict was awarded to owners of Kia sedans with allegedly faulty braking systems. The court upheld the verdict in a nonprecedential decision Wednesday.

A Philadelphia jury awarded a total of $5,641,200, or $600 a piece, to 9,402 class members whose 1995 to 2001 Kia Sephias had brakes that allegedly were prone to wear and tear, often needed replacement approximately every 5,000 miles, and sometimes failed to stop the sedans, The Legal Intelligencer previously reported.

The American standard of the length of life of brakes is much higher than 5,000 miles, the opinion in Samuel-Bassett v. Kia Motors America Inc. said. Common Pleas Judge Mark I. Bernstein presided over the trial.

The Superior Court panel was comprised of Judges John T. Bender, Susan Peikes Gantman and Richard B. Klein.

Kia argued that some of the class members might not be individually entitled to an award and that it was in error to assess $600 for each class member, the opinion said.

But the Superior Court said class representative Shamell Samuel-Bassett's total cost for brake repairs during the warranty was $596.16, and it was reasonable to multiply $600 for the 9,402 class members to reach the verdict of $5,641,200.

"Regardless of whether an individual class member had his or her brakes repaired under warranty by Kia, all class members were entitled to have good brakes on their cars that did not require repeated trips to the dealership for replacement in order to avoid brake failure," the opinion said.

Class counsel Alan Feldman of Feldman Shepherd Wohlgelernter Tanner & Weinstock said he was not sure why the appellate court chose to issue a nonprecedential decision, but fellow class counsel Michael Donovan of Donovan Searles viewed it as an affirmation of the viability of taking Pennsylvania class action lawsuits to jury trial.

"I think it was so clear to the Superior Court that Judge Bernstein had conducted a model class action trial. There was no legal issue that the Superior Court felt they needed to right," Donovan said.

Feldman said he also viewed the Superior Court's decision as an affirmation of trying class actions in front of a jury. He said he didn't know of any other Pennsylvania class action that has gone to trial besides the verdict that Donovan won against Wal-Mart for its alleged nonpayment of its employees for missed breaks and off-the-clock work. Bernstein also presided over that case.

Feldman said he also is not aware of an appellate opinion affirming a class action jury verdict in recent years. While Kia was not interested in settlement, according to Feldman, he said that most class actions are either settled or decided as a matter of law, instead of as a matter of facts.

"This is a case that could have been resolved," Feldman said. "Even after trial we let Kia know we would be glad to talk and they always said no. That's why the Superior Court affirmation of the verdict is particularly gratifying in light of this corporate defendant's refusal to even discuss settlement."

Kia argued that the class was improperly certified because it was not certain that each class member relied upon the warranty or that Kia refused to conduct repairs, the opinion said.

But the Superior Court said in its opinion that the class was properly certified because trial evidence demonstrated that the 1995-2001 Kia Sephias had a defective brake system design, that expert testimony would be needed to prove each claim and that it would strain the court system to litigate each claim individually.

Calls to the Philadelphia and Tampa, Fla., offices of DLA Piper, a firm representing Kia, were not returned.

Kia also argued that Bernstein erred in his jury instructions, but the Superior Court noted that Kia either "won on the issue or failed to object to the charge."

The attorneys have two more similar class actions pending against Kia in New Jersey and Florida, Feldman said. James Francis of Francis & Mailman also is class counsel.

"It reaffirms the fact that the trial court conducted a model class action trial that will prove the merit of the class action device and shows that class actions can recover real money for real people," Donovan said.

The brakes on Samuel-Bassett's 2000 Sephia had to be replaced at least four times in the first 12,000 miles she drove it and more than 12 times by the time the odometer read 45,000, The Legal previously reported. Samuel-Bassett demanded that Kia buy the car back from her, but the company refused.

The Superior Court also ruled that Bernstein must issue a supplemental 1925(a) opinion to support why he awarded $4.125 million in counsel fees and $267,513 in expenses in January 2006.

The Superior Court said both parties would have 30 days after Bernstein issues his 1925(a) opinion to file supplemental briefs in the appellate court. It will be up to Kia to decide if it will again appeal the attorney fees, the plaintiffs' attorneys said. The same Superior Court panel that made last week's decision has retained jurisdiction over the attorney fees and expenses issue.

The plaintiffs' attorneys will file a supplemental brief in front of Bernstein to seek an award of counsel fees for their appellate work since the jury verdict.

Donovan welcomed the remand of the attorney fees to Bernstein because he noted that Kia had compared Bernstein to the Red Queen from "Alice in Wonderland" in the appellate brief: The remand of the attorney fees issue to the very judge they characterized as the Red Queen is a major gift to the plaintiff."

"In the course of the 'Alice in Wonderland' proceedings below, the trial court transformed a modest individual express warranty recovery ($600) into a major windfall ($5,641,200) for 9,402 individual Kia Sephia owners who proved no claim for breach of express warranty and no loss. ... What makes the result truly surreal is that to reach it the trial court utterly disregarded its own pretrial order on the eve of trial, which set the stage for all subsequent proceedings," the Kia brief said.

"The order plainly stated, in the trial judge's own handwriting: '[e]ach class member's entitlement to recover if plaintiff class prevails, shall be determined at claims proceedings.' ... When reminded of its order in post-trial argument, in a response that suggests the capriciousness of the Red Queen, the trial court characterized that order as a 'comment from the bench.' ... Fundamental notions of due process and fairness do not permit a trial court to establish the playing field for trial and then move the goal posts."

In a footnote in the plaintiffs' brief, plaintiffs counsel wrote in response, "KMA irreverently criticizes the trial court for conducting 'Alice in the Wonderland' proceedings' and compares Judge Bernstein to the 'Red Queen.' ... But the hyperbole and distortion of KMA's brief are more reflective of the addled lyrics of a different 'Alice in Wonderland': 'when logic and proportion have fallen softly dead.' White Rabbit, performed by Jefferson Airplane."

The appellate court also rejected the plaintiff cross-appeal of Bernstein's order denying class certification under the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law.

Bernstein ruled that Samuel-Bassett met the requirement for class certification under the commonwealth's rules of civil procedure for her breach of warranty claims but not her consumer protection claim.

He found that Samuel-Bassett had met all the requirements of class certification under Pennsylvania's rules of civil procedure for the breach of warranty claims but not consumer protection claims because the commonality requirement was not met and there were not questions of law or fact common to the individual class members.