## Facts

- Edmond Mekertichian bought a new 2000 Mercedes-Benz S500V from an authorized independent dealer in Illinois.
- Mercedes-Benz issued a 48-month/50,000-mile limited written warranty providing repairs or replacements through authorized dealerships for defects in materials or workmanship.
- Mekertichian experienced repeated vehicle problems and brought the vehicle to the dealer for repairs, alleging the defects were not corrected.
- He attempted to revoke acceptance of the vehicle; Mercedes-Benz refused.
- Mekertichian sued Mercedes-Benz under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act for breach of written warranty and implied warranty of merchantability.
- Mercedes-Benz sought partial summary judgment on the implied-warranty claim, arguing it failed for lack of vertical privity because Mekertichian bought from a dealer, not the manufacturer.
- The trial court denied the motion and certified the privity question for interlocutory appeal under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 308.

## Issues

1. In a Magnuson-Moss action, does lack of vertical privity between a consumer and a manufacturer bar an implied warranty of merchantability claim when the manufacturer issued a written warranty to the consumer?

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed the denial of Mercedes-Benz’s motion for partial summary judgment.
- The court held that, under controlling Illinois Supreme Court precedent, vertical privity is not required for a Magnuson-Moss implied-warranty claim against a manufacturer that issued a written warranty to the consumer.
- Because the privity defense failed as a matter of law under binding precedent, Mercedes-Benz was not entitled to summary judgment on the implied-warranty claim.

## Legal Principles

- Summary judgment is proper only when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
- Under Illinois Supreme Court precedent addressing Magnuson-Moss, a manufacturer’s written warranty supplied to the consumer permits the consumer to pursue implied warranty claims against the manufacturer even without traditional vertical privity.
- Illinois appellate courts must follow Illinois Supreme Court interpretations of the interaction between Magnuson-Moss and Illinois warranty law, notwithstanding contrary federal decisions.

## Conclusion

The court ruled that a consumer may maintain a Magnuson-Moss implied warranty of merchantability claim against a vehicle manufacturer that issued a written warranty, even though the vehicle was purchased from an independent dealer and no vertical privity exists.


Mekertichian v. Mercedes-Benz U.S.A., L.L.C., 347 Ill. App. 3d 828, 807 N.E.2d 1165 (Ill. App. Ct. 1st Dist. 2004)