Court won't reinstate customer lawsuit against Land Rover store

The Texas Court of Appeals refused to reinstate a customer's breach-of-warranty and breach-of-contract lawsuit against a Land Rover dealership that the customer said failed to "perform its contractual obligation" under the warranty and "to perform services in a good and workmanlike manner" on her 2014 Range Rover Evoque.

Angelia Hill said she bought the vehicle and an extended service contract from Land Rover of Southwest Houston in 2014. The dealership said she did not buy an extended service contract, only windshield and tire protection. The store replaced the engine under warranty at 28,528 miles and then, at over 56,000 miles, serviced it for "low coolant level."

When she returned to the store 11 months later, she had not changed the oil for 33,586 miles. The service department recommended a new engine, the decision said.

Hill sued, asserting the store wrongly refused to repair the Evoque under her supposed extended warranty. The case was dismissed without trial.

The Aug. 10 Court of Appeals decision upheld that ruling, saying Hill failed to present expert testimony that the dealership "breached its standard of care and caused the engine to fail." She plans to appeal, her lawyer said.

Two Massachusetts dealerships are suing Volvo Cars USA for allegedly refusing to pay them the retail service rate for labor on work done under Volvo-branded prepaid maintenance plans.

Both stores charge $220 per hour for warranty repairs, but the suit says Volvo Cars Plymouth receives only $175 per hour and Volvo Cars Cape Cod gets reimbursed only $128 per hour for servicing vehicles under the Volvo prepaid maintenance plans it sells. The rate is even lower for such plans sold by other dealerships, according to the suit.

The reimbursements violate the state Motor Vehicle Dealer Act requirement for "fair and adequate compensation" that is "not less than the rate and price customarily charged for retail customer repairs," the suit contends.

A lawyer for Volvo declined to discuss the suit, but the automaker denied any wrongdoing or liability in a July 29 federal court filing.

Both dealerships "continue to perform maintenance pursuant to Volvo's PPM on an almost daily basis, so their damages continue to accrue," the suit says. It seeks an injunction that requires higher reimbursement, as well as damages.

The suit also names JM&A Group, the third-party plan administrator, as the co-defendant.