(A) Any consumer may bring a civil action in a court of common pleas or other court of competent jurisdiction against any manufacturer if the manufacturer fails to comply with section 1345.72 of the Revised Code and, in addition to the relief to which the consumer is entitled under that section, shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorney's fees and all court costs.
(B) The remedies in sections 1345.71 to 1345.78 of the Revised Code are in addition to remedies otherwise available to consumers under law.
(C) Any action brought under division (A) of this section shall be commenced within five years of the date of original delivery of the motor vehicle. Any period of limitation of actions under any federal or Ohio laws with respect to any consumer shall be tolled for the period that begins on the date that a complaint is filed with an informal dispute resolution mechanism established pursuant to section 1345.77 of the Revised Code and ends on the date of the decision by the informal dispute resolution mechanism.
(D) It is an affirmative defense to any claim under this section that a nonconformity is the result of abuse, neglect, or the unauthorized modification or alteration of a motor vehicle by anyone other than the manufacturer, its agent, or its authorized dealer.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1994–2026 · leading case: Maitland v. Ford Motor Co., 103 Ohio St. 3d 463 (Ohio 2004).
Maitland v. Ford Motor Co., 103 Ohio St. 3d 463 (Ohio 2004). · cites it 9דThe court held that the plaintiffs had accepted the settlement offers and were precluded from filing a civil action under R.C. 1345.75 for additional damages. In addition, the court held that the Attorney General had authorized the use of the mileage setoff, so it could not…”
Cruz v. English Nanny & Governess Sch., 2022 Ohio 3586 (Ohio 2022). · cites it 2דSimilar to a prevailing party’s recovering appellate-attorney fees when there is a statute permitting recovery of attorney fees (one exception to the American rule), prevailing parties may recover appellate- attorney fees when punitive damages are awarded (another exception to…”
Lucas v. Ford Motor Co., 2018 Ohio 3765 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018). “Thus, once the dispute is settled, "[t]he previously existing claim is extinguished by the compromise and settlement and, as a result, any subsequent litigation based upon it is barred.”
Ulrich v. Mercedes-Benz, USA, L.L.C., 2012 Ohio 1623 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 3ד{¶11} R.C. 1345.75, the statute authorizing an award of reasonable attorney fees and costs in a lemon-law claim, does not contain any limitation with regard to the time frame within which an aggrieved consumer must request his fees.”
Pertuset v. Ford Motor Co., 645 N.E.2d 1329 (Ohio Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 3דThe court found Peugeot’s argument unpersuasive and held that the sections of R.C. 1345.75 must be read in pari materia and should be construed together.”
Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Hollanshead, 663 N.E.2d 663 (Ohio Ct. App. 1995). “” *22 With respect to the class of individuals who are entitled to bring a civil action under this statute, R.C. 1345.75 provides that: “Any purchaser of a new motor vehicle who suffers any loss due to nonconformity of the motor vehicle as a result of failure by the…”
Ulrich v. Mercedes-Benz USA, L.L.C., 931 N.E.2d 599 (Ohio Ct. App. 2010). “R.C. 1345.75(A). Further, reasonable attorney fees may be awarded under the lemon law for fees incurred on appeal.”
Keel v. Toledo Harley-Davidson/Buell, 920 N.E.2d 1041 (Ohio Ct. App. 2009). “R.C. 1345.75(A). A “manufacturer” means a “person who manufactures, assembles, or imports motor vehicles, including motor homes, but does not mean a person who only assembles or installs a body, special equipment unit, finishing trim, or accessories on a motor vehicle chassis…”
Harris v. Ford Motor Co., 852 N.E.2d 750 (Ohio Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 7דAlternatively, Ford contends that Harris had received timely notice of the dispute resolution mechanism and could not bring a cause of action under R.C. 1345.75 prior to resorting to that dispute resolution process.”
Maitland v. Ford Motor Co., 792 N.E.2d 207 (Ohio Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 3ד” {¶ 21} R.C. 1345.75 gives consumers a cause of action against manufacturers who do not comply with the requirements of R.”
In re B.D., 2012 Ohio 2223 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012). “After his release from jail, appellant was on probation until he completed the SAY Program. The court’s order of March 24, 2009 specified it would not conduct the registration hearing until after appellant completed the SAY program.”
Cruz v. English Nanny & Governess Sch., 2022 Ohio 3586 (Ohio 2022). “Similar to a prevailing party’s recovering appellate-attorney fees when there is a statute permitting recovery of attorney fees (one exception to the American rule), prevailing parties may recover appellate- attorney fees when punitive damages are awarded (another exception to…”
Ulrich v. Mercedes-Benz USA, L.L.C., 931 N.E.2d 599 (Ohio Ct. App. 2010). “R.C. 1345.75(A). Further, reasonable attorney fees may be awarded under the lemon law for fees incurred on appeal.”
Keel v. Toledo Harley-Davidson/Buell, 920 N.E.2d 1041 (Ohio Ct. App. 2009). “R.C. 1345.75(A). A “manufacturer” means a “person who manufactures, assembles, or imports motor vehicles, including motor homes, but does not mean a person who only assembles or installs a body, special equipment unit, finishing trim, or accessories on a motor vehicle chassis…”
Maitland v. Ford Motor Co., 792 N.E.2d 207 (Ohio Ct. App. 2003). “” {¶ 21} R.C. 1345.75 gives consumers a cause of action against manufacturers who do not comply with the requirements of R.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.