On the Move: Legal Issues Affecting Motor Vehicle Manufacturer and Dealer Law

Lou Chronowski • November 10, 2021

“Pandemic Impact? - New York Federal Court Allows Termination Dispute to Proceed”

        On October 26, a federal court in New York allowed a termination complaint filed by a dealer against GM to proceed. The case is styled Maltbie’s Garage Co. v. General Motors LLC, No. 1:21-CV-581, United States District Court, Northern District of New York.


           The dealer lost its primary floor plan lender in 2017 [1]. After that, the dealer cobbled together funding sources and ultimately transitioned to a “cash-only model” to purchase vehicles from GM. This resulted in lower sales for the dealer. In late 2020, GM notified the dealer of a breach of its dealer agreement stating that the dealer needed to secure new floor planning within 30 days. In early January 2021, GM notified the dealer that it was terminating the dealer’s franchise at the end of April 2021, whether the dealer had floor plan financing or not.


           The dealer subsequently attempted to sell its dealership to a third party and asked GM to approve of the sale transaction. GM withheld consent for the proposed sale transaction. The dealer then filed a complaint in state court alleging that GM violated Section 463(2)(d) of the New York Franchised Motor Vehicle Dealer Act (the “Act”) by attempting to terminate the franchise without “due cause.” The dealer asserted other claims that GM violated Sections 463(2)(k) and 466 of the Act by failing to approve the sale transaction and breached the dealer agreement in various ways. GM removed the case to federal court and filed a motion to dismiss. On a motion to dismiss, where the court must accept all well pled facts as true and draw all reasonable inferences in the dealer’s favor, the court denied GM’s motion regarding claims under the Act but granted it with respect to the breach of contract claims, including the alleged breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing.


           The dealer argued that the global pandemic, GM’s production decreases caused by the global supply chain issues and the unwillingness of GM’s captive floor plan lender to provide floor plan financing to the dealer defeated GM’s claim of due cause to terminate the franchise. Ultimately, the court denied GM’s motion on this claim because the dealer had “sufficiently” pled that GM had not given the dealer a reasonable time to cure the alleged breach as required by the Act. The court reached a similar conclusion regarding the claims regarding approval of the proposed sale.


           This case is interesting because manufacturers should consider, and I am not saying that GM did not do so here, whether and the extent that pandemic and resultant supply chain issues impact dealer termination decision calculus. Nonetheless, even if a manufacturer does consider these factors, it may be difficult to prevail on a motion to dismiss.


           Please contact me if you have any questions at lchronowski@ghulaw.com.


  [1] A floor plan lender provides financing to dealers so that it can purchase vehicles from manufacturers. Typically, a vehicle is placed on a dealer’s floorplan when the vehicle leaves the plant and dealers are charged interest until the vehicle is sold and the dealer pays the floor plan lender for that vehicle.

Options for Addressing Title Encumbrances in Loan Transactions

By Jordan Uditsky • January 4, 2022
An amendment to the Mechanics Lien Act (the "Act') permits the bonding over of mechanic's liens in the State of Illinois. The bill was signed into law ( 770 ILCS 60/38.1 ) on July 28, 2015, and went into effect on January 1, 2016. This statute is significant because it allows parties to "clear title" to real property that would otherwise be subject to a mechanic's lien. An eligible applicant will be permitted to substitute a bond for the real property subject to the underlying mechanic's lien so that the lien attaches to the bond instead of the real property. Who is Eligible? To take advantage of 770 ILCS 60/38.1 , the party desiring to bond over the lien must be an eligible applicant. The statute defines applicant relatively broadly to include the following parties: An owner; Other lien claimant; A party that has an interest in the property subject to the lien claim; An association representing owners organized under any statute or to which the Common Interest Community Association Act applies; or Any person who may be liable for the payment of the lien claim, including an owner, former owner, association representing owners organized under any statute or to which the Common Interest Community Association Act applies, or the contractor or subcontractor. Process for Filing a Petition To effectively substitute the bond for the real property, the applicant must file a petition with the clerk of the circuit court in the county where the property subject to the underlying lien claim is located. The petition must include the following: The name and address of the applicant and the applicant's attorney, if any; The name and address of the lien claimant; If there is a pending action to enforce the claim, the name of the attorney of record, or if there is no pending claim, but the claim has been recorded, the name of the preparer of the lien claim; The name and address of the owner of record of any real estate subject to the claim or the name and address of the homeowners association or the condominium association; A legal description of the property; A copy of the lien claim; A copy of the proposed eligible surety bond; A certified copy of the surety's certificate of authority from the Department of Insurance or the state agency charged with the duty to issue the certificate; and An undertaking by the applicant to replace the bond with another eligible surety bond in the event that the proposed eligible surety bond ceases to be an eligible bond. After filing a proper petition, the applicant must provide notice and a copy of the petition, either by personal service or certified mail, to every party whose name and address is stated in the petition and the lien party's attorney of record. Jordan Uditsky, an accomplished businessman and seasoned attorney, combines his experience as a legal counselor and successful entrepreneur to advise business owners in the Chicago area.

On the Move: The Future is Now!

By Lou Chronowski • October 19, 2021
Welcome to GHU’s newest blog – On the Move: The Future is Now! This blog focuses on legal and policy issues facing the vehicle industry. The future is now for the vehicle industry. Some states (CA and MA) have issued mandates requiring that vehicle manufacturers stop selling new ICE (internal combustion engine) vehicles by 2035. Most legacy vehicle manufacturers have made various announcements stating that their respective product portfolios will move from ICE to zero emission vehicles (EVs) over the next 10-14 years. Another significant issue facing the issue relates to how vehicles are purchased. Over the past several years, Tesla has charted a distribution model that rejects traditional dealerships and uses direct sales and service. Other EV manufacturers like Rivian and Lucid appear to be headed in a similar direction. It is well known that Apple and Amazon have plans to enter the vehicle space as well. Consumers will have a large role in determining how they want to purchase vehicles and vehicle services (much the same as they did with respect to on-demand transportation with the likes of Uber and Lyft). The question is whether traditional manufacturers will be kept on an uneven playing field with these newer market entrants. Finally, autonomous vehicles (AVs) are right around the corner as well. In addition to consumer adoption and acceptance of EVs, it is still unknown how consumers will react to AVs and whether AVs have a large role in America. The future is now. The changes in the industry are happening now and happening at fast pace. This blog will continue to explore issues facing the vehicle industry. For 20 years, Lou Chronowski has represented motor vehicle manufacturers helping them navigate complex laws and regulations and litigating disputes against dealers. If you have any questions, please contact Lou at lchronowski@ghulaw.com .

Employers Can Require COVID-19 Vaccinations For Most Employees

By Jordan Uditsky • January 14, 2021
As this relentlessly awful year mercifully draws to a close, a light at the end of our pandemic tunnel is rapidly approaching. COVID-19 vaccines are poised for approval, and it is expected that distribution will begin in earnest shortly. But no matter how much and how confidently the FDA and other health experts proclaim these vaccines to be safe and effective, there are large numbers of Americans who say they won’t get the shot when it becomes available. The most recent Gallup poll found that only 63 percent of Americans say they are willing to be inoculated against the disease. Many of those who don’t want to get vaccinated will soon find out that they work for an employer who feels differently. Those employers may also tell them that they either need to get the vaccine or need to find a new job. And, in most cases, employers may be well within their rights to terminate employees who refuse to take the COVID-19 vaccine. Mandatory Vaccinations Are Not New Companies that have spent the better part of the year – and lots of money - trying to keep their workplaces COVID-free see the vaccine as the apex of those efforts. With a fully vaccinated workforce, business owners can operate without disruption and provide employees, customers, clients, and patients with confidence and peace of mind. But all of those benefits of the vaccine only accrue to fully vaccinated workforces. So, many companies may mandate that employees get their shot as a condition of continued employment. By doing so, they are following a legally sound path that predates the current pandemic. Well before anyone had heard of coronavirus, plenty of employers, primarily in the health care sector, required employees to get the flu vaccine and vaccinations against other infectious diseases. Most public school districts also require proof of vaccinations before a student can enroll and attend classes. Since most employees in Illinois work on an “at-will” basis, they can face termination for almost any reason not expressly prohibited by federal, state, or local laws. Generally, no law stands in the way of an employer requiring the COVID-19 vaccine for its workers. ADA and Religious Exceptions However, employers who make vaccines mandatory need to be mindful that employees with legitimate health or religious concerns about the vaccine may be protected from termination and other adverse employment actions if they refuse the shot. But these exceptions don’t necessarily apply just because someone doesn’t believe in vaccines generally (“anti-vaxers”) or thinks that forcing them to get vaccination is an infringement on their liberties. Employees who have a disability recognized under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) that prevents them from taking the coronavirus vaccine cannot be forced to get the vaccine, so long as their exemption does not impose an “undue hardship” on the employer. Such disabilities in this context may include a compromised immune system or an allergy to an ingredient in the vaccine. While there has been no definitive guidance on the subject, one could credibly argue that an employee’s refusal to get vaccinated is an “undue hardship” if it places the health and safety of other employees and visitors at increase risk of infection. Even in such cases, however, an employer may need to make a “reasonable accommodation” for the employee, such as allowing them to work from home. Similarly, the anti-discrimination provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 may protect a worker if their “sincerely-held religious beliefs” preclude them from getting a vaccination. Such beliefs do not include political or personal views. The burden is on the employee to demonstrate the legitimacy of their religious objections to the vaccine. More Than Legal Issues To Consider Even when an employer is within their legal rights to require employees to get the COVID-19 vaccine, other considerations may weigh against such a mandate. For example, they may need protection against an employee who has an adverse reaction, even if they signed a waiver upon receiving the shot. A vaccination requirement may also get an adverse reaction from employees generally as well as the general public if it seems heavy-handed and overreaching. Of course, those that decide against a mandate face risks if someone does contract the coronavirus in the workplace and sues. Please Contact Grogan Hesse & Uditsky With All Of Your COVID-Related Employment Questions If you have questions or concerns about how to handle vaccinations or other employment issues related to COVID-19, please call us at (630) 833-5533 or contact us online to arrange for a consultation.
Show More