Ralph will steal from you. Expectantly likes the elderly. So take his a$$ to court. Defendant by owner and partner Ralph Stritmatter. Mr. Stritmatter states that Commercial Auto, Inc. is no longer incorporated. He states that it is a partnership between him and his son. Cause submitted. Evidence heard.
The Magistrate, having taken this matter under advisement, now issues the following findings and Order:
1. On or about October 2, 2013 the Plaintiff took her 2000 Subaru Forester to the Defendant's place of business to have a transmission leak repaired. The repair was completed and Ms. Norden, through her sister, paid the repair cost of $970.19.
2. The Plaintiff continued to experience a leak from her automobile so she returned in late October to the Defendant's place of business. An engine oil leak was diagnosed at that time. Mr. Stritmatter testified that he had a service technician from Subaru of Fort Wayne inspect the automobile and it was determined that the front engine seals were leaking and that it was not a transmission problem. Plaintiff authorized the repairs of the front engine seals. That work was done for a cost of $1,013.19. The work was completed on October 24,-2013.
3. Approximately one week later the Plaintiff experienced a problem with the automobile. Mr. Stritmatter towed the automobile to his place of business and determined that a transmission hose had failed. Repairs were performed at the cost of $262.91. Mr. Stritmatter covered those repairs under the warranty and the Plaintiff did not pay any amount for those repairs. The repairs took approximately six (6) days to complete due to the fact that parts had to be ordered.
4. The Plaintiff asserts that none of the repairs performed by Mr. Stritmatter were necessary and/or that the repairs that were necessary were not properly performed. showing that the transmission repairs and the engine gasket repairs were not properly completed or were not necessary. Rather,she presented the two gaskets that were replaced and that she and her family believe that they were not faulty.
5. The Plaintiff did show that she was inconvenienced and incurred cost of having to obtain a ride for the week that she was without her automobile due to the transmission hose failure. She is entitled to recover $20.00 per day for six (6) days for a total cost of $120.00.
6. The Plaintiff also presented evidence showing that an oil change, more likely than not, was not performed. She presented extremely old oil that was drained from the automobile approximately 500 miles after the plaintiff said the oil was changed. The Plaintiff is entitled to reimbursement in the amount of $27.50 for the oil change that may not have been performed.Make sure you have a Certified Mechanic with you since the judge is not on you side.
Commercial Auto Reviews
Ralph will steal from you. Expectantly likes the elderly. So take his a$$ to court. Defendant by owner and partner Ralph Stritmatter. Mr. Stritmatter states that Commercial Auto, Inc. is no longer incorporated. He states that it is a partnership between him and his son. Cause submitted. Evidence heard.
The Magistrate, having taken this matter under advisement, now issues the following findings and Order:
1. On or about October 2, 2013 the Plaintiff took her 2000 Subaru Forester to the Defendant's place of business to have a transmission leak repaired. The repair was completed and Ms. Norden, through her sister, paid the repair cost of $970.19.
2. The Plaintiff continued to experience a leak from her automobile so she returned in late October to the Defendant's place of business. An engine oil leak was diagnosed at that time. Mr. Stritmatter testified that he had a service technician from Subaru of Fort Wayne inspect the automobile and it was determined that the front engine seals were leaking and that it was not a transmission problem. Plaintiff authorized the repairs of the front engine seals. That work was done for a cost of $1,013.19. The work was completed on October 24,-2013.
3. Approximately one week later the Plaintiff experienced a problem with the automobile. Mr. Stritmatter towed the automobile to his place of business and determined that a transmission hose had failed. Repairs were performed at the cost of $262.91. Mr. Stritmatter covered those repairs under the warranty and the Plaintiff did not pay any amount for those repairs. The repairs took approximately six (6) days to complete due to the fact that parts had to be ordered.
4. The Plaintiff asserts that none of the repairs performed by Mr. Stritmatter were necessary and/or that the repairs that were necessary were not properly performed. showing that the transmission repairs and the engine gasket repairs were not properly completed or were not necessary. Rather,she presented the two gaskets that were replaced and that she and her family believe that they were not faulty.
5. The Plaintiff did show that she was inconvenienced and incurred cost of having to obtain a ride for the week that she was without her automobile due to the transmission hose failure. She is entitled to recover $20.00 per day for six (6) days for a total cost of $120.00.
6. The Plaintiff also presented evidence showing that an oil change, more likely than not, was not performed. She presented extremely old oil that was drained from the automobile approximately 500 miles after the plaintiff said the oil was changed. The Plaintiff is entitled to reimbursement in the amount of $27.50 for the oil change that may not have been performed.Make sure you have a Certified Mechanic with you since the judge is not on you side.