From our private database of 13,400+ case briefs...
Schurtz v. BMW of North America
Utah Supreme Court
814 P.2d 1108 (1991)
Hugh Schurtz (plaintiff) purchased a vehicle from BMW of North America (BMW) (defendant). The vehicle came with a limited warranty that gave BMW the sole discretion to repair or replace the vehicle. Additionally, the warranty disclaimed incidental and consequential damages for any breach of the warranty. Schurtz experienced problems with his vehicle and BWM refused to repair or replace the car. Schurtz filed suit for breach of the warranty seeking damages, including incidental and consequential damages. Schurtz argued that under Utah law, where a warranty fails its essential purpose then a provision excluding incidental and consequential damages is invalid. Conversely, BMW argued that a provision excluding incidental and consequential damages only fails when it is unconscionable. The trial court upheld the provision excluding incidental and consequential damages granting BMW’s partial motion for summary judgment. Schurtz appealed.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Zimmerman, J.)
Concurrence/Dissent (Stewart, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.
Here's why 151,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 13,400 briefs, keyed to 183 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
View this case and other resources at:
Citation.517 U.S. 559, 116 S. Ct. 1589, 134 L. Ed. 2d 809 (1996)
Brief Fact Summary. The Petitioner, BMW (Petitioner), sold slightly damaged, new cars for full value and never told the buyers about the damage. The Respondent, Gore (Respondent), purchased one these damaged vehicles and was awarded actual damages, plus $4 million punitive damages.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. Punitive damages may be imposed to further a state’s legitimate interest in punishing unlawful conduct and deterring its repetition as long as they are not “grossly excessive.”�
Facts. In 1990, the Respondent purchased a new BMW for $40,000 from an authorized dealer in Alabama. After 9 months he decided to take the car to a detailer to have it shined and cleaned. This specialist informed Respondent that his car had been painted to cover minor damage to the body.
At trial, the Petitioner admitted that it was company policy to repair any damage to vehicles during shipping. If the cost of the repair exceeded 3% of the car’s retail value, it was placed in company service and later sold as used. But, if the cost of repair was less than 3% the car was sold at full retail value.
Actual damages to Respondent were estimated at 10% of the car value based on expert testimony. Punitive damages were determined by estimating that Petitioner had sold approximately 1,000 cars in Alabama for more than they were worth.
On appeal, the Supreme Court of Alabama found Petitioner’s conduct reprehensible and that the punitive damage award would not have a substantial impact on the financial viability of the company. However, the Court found the computation of the amount was in error and reduced the award to $2 million accordingly.
Issue. Does an award of $2 million in punitive damages to the purchaser of one car exceed the constitutional limit?