Johnson v. Wynn’s Extended Care, Inc.

Full title: TIJUANA JOHNSON, on behalf of herself and other persons similarly…


Date published: Oct 15, 2014


On February 12, 2011, Plaintiff purchased a used 2007 Saturn from Smitty’s Auto, a car dealership. At the same time, she purchased a “Used Vehicle Service Contract” (the “Service Contract”) from Defendants Wynn and National. (See Second Amended Complaint, Ex. B.) The Service Contract was entered into by Smitty’s Auto and Plaintiff but provided that, upon acceptance of the application by Defendant Wynn, it would become Plaintiff’s contract. The plaintiff alleges that she paid a $1,380 premium for the purchase of coverage.

In May 2011, the Plaintiff’s car stopped operating. At the direction of Smitty’s Auto, Plaintiff had her vehicle taken to Exclusive Auto in Burlington, New Jersey, to determine what repairs were needed. Exclusive Auto, after taking apart the engine, determined that the vehicle needed a new engine.

The plaintiff then requested that Wynn repair the vehicle. Wynn refused to authorize the repair and denied that the Service Contract provided coverage on the basis that the vehicle was covered under the manufacturer’s warranty. Specifically,  Plaintiff alleges that “Defendants refused to authorize repair of the vehicle by denying without any basis that the [Service Contract] provided coverage and by misrepresenting to [her] that the vehicle was also covered under a manufacturer’s warranty after Defendants already knowingly voided any manufacturer’s warranty.” (Second Amended Complaint, Docket No. 28 ¶ 28 (emphasis added).) The plaintiff, relying upon the Defendants’ misrepresentations, contacted the manufacturer of the car, General Motors, to seek coverage and repair. General Motors, however, denied coverage because Exclusive Auto had taken apart the engine “at the direction of Defendants,” thereby voiding the warranty. (Second Amended Complaint ¶ 30 (emphasis added).) Plaintiff again contacted the Defendants and demanded coverage under the Service Contract. According to Plaintiff, Defendants, “knowing that the [Service Contract’s] arbitration provision made it financially impossible for Plaintiff (or any consumer) to pursue any legal remedies against Defendants, again refused to pay and denied coverage without any basis whatsoever, but solely to save Defendants money.”



For the reasons stated herein, the Defendant’s motion to dismiss Count 1 (the CFA Count) is GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part. Defendants’ motion to dismiss Count 2 (the TCCWNA Count) is GRANTED. The Court’s prior Opinion and Order (Docket Nos. 25 and 26), finding that Plaintiff stated a TCCWNA claim, is vacated. 

Related Post

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

3 × three =