$________ Consumer Fraud – Deceptive Business Practices – Plaintiff alleges that defendant materially misrepresented accident history of vehicle.

Cook County, IL

In this action for consumer fraud, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant misrepresented the accident history of a vehicle in order to make a sale. The defendant denied the allegations and questioned the veracity of the vehicle’s alleged accident history.

The plaintiff purchased a used ________ BMW X5 from the defendant for $________. Shortly after the purchase, the vehicle began to experience a number of problems. Upon tendering the vehicle for repairs, the plaintiff learned it had sustained over $________ worth of accident damage. Thus, the plaintiff filed for suit for violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (the “Act”).

At trial, the plaintiff testified that he had specifically asked the defendant’s salesman about the vehicle’s accident history. According to the plaintiff, the salesman represented that the vehicle had not been in an accident. Additionally, independent witnesses who looked at or repaired the car testified that there were obvious signs of accident damage. Insurance documents and pictures also supported this claim. Therefore, the plaintiff argued that the defendant had violated the Act by misrepresenting the accident history of the vehicle and the defendant knew or should have known that the vehicle was in a prior accident.

The defendant denied the allegations; arguing that the plaintiff never asked if the vehicle was in an accident. In addition, the defendant contested whether the vehicle was actually in an accident. The defendant’s witnesses testified that based on his experience in the auto industry, he would see signs the vehicle had been in an accident if it sustained $________ worth of damage.The plaintiff was ultimately awarded a total sum of $________ which consisted of $________ in actual damages and $________ in punitive damages.