Holding Manufacturers Accountable: Warranty Denials Must Be Based on Proven Lack of Maintenance
PASCO COUNTY, FL — A developing legal dispute in the Pasco County Court has brought to light a growing concern among consumers: the ease with which major auto manufacturers can deny warranty claims—sometimes without substantiated evidence. At the heart of this debate is a small claims case involving Anthony Gaeto, a Florida resident and owner of a 2015 Mercedes-Benz Electric Drive, and Mercedes-Benz USA (MBUSA).
Gaeto has filed a Motion for Sanctions under Florida Statutes §57.105 against MBUSA and its legal counsel, accusing them of complicating the proceedings and submitting unsupported defenses in a motion to dismiss his claim. The controversy centers on MBUSA's refusal to honor a warranty repair, citing a supposed lack of maintenance without providing evidence that maintenance neglect caused the failure.
The Incident and Warranty Dispute
The case began when Gaeto’s electric vehicle became immobile on a public roadway and was towed to Mercedes-Benz of Wesley Chapel (MBWC)—an authorized MBUSA service center. The dealership diagnosed the failure as a defective drive battery, a component covered under the vehicle’s 8-year/100,000-mile express warranty.
After initial verification by MBUSA’s Warranty Dispute Resolution Department that the vehicle was within the warranty period and the repair would be covered, Gaeto received a loaner vehicle and awaited repairs. However, upon completion of the work, Gaeto was unexpectedly presented with a bill, informed that warranty coverage had been denied.
The Role of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act
Gaeto’s motion points to the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (MMWA)—a federal law designed to protect consumers from unjustified warranty denials. Under MMWA, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer (not the consumer) to prove that the failure was due to the consumer’s breach of warranty terms, such as failing to maintain the product. Importantly, this burden of proof requires evidence.
In Gaeto’s case, no documentation or diagnostic reports were provided to support MBUSA’s claim that improper maintenance led to the battery’s failure. Despite requests during discovery, MBUSA has not produced any records or inspections verifying that neglect occurred or was the root cause of the issue.
Misuse of Legal Procedure to Avoid Responsibility?
According to Gaeto, MBUSA’s legal team—headed by attorney Danial Klee of Bromagen, Rathet, Klee & Smith, P.A.—compounded the issue by filing a Motion to Dismiss based on Florida Rules of Civil Procedure (RCP), which are not applicable in Small Claims Court proceedings. This strategic move, Gaeto argues, was an attempt to “complicate the proceedings” and overwhelm a Pro Se litigant (someone representing themselves) by introducing irrelevant legal arguments and procedural rules.
Additionally, Gaeto asserts that MBUSA misrepresented statements from his complaint, falsely suggesting he admitted to not maintaining the vehicle. He maintains that the only “evidence” MBUSA has offered is that maintenance was not done within its network—not that the maintenance was neglected altogether or was responsible for the battery’s failure.
Why This Matters for All Consumers
This case is more than just a local dispute—it highlights a systemic issue that could affect any vehicle owner. Under consumer protection laws like MMWA, manufacturers are not permitted to void warranties or deny coverage simply because maintenance occurred outside their network—especially without proving that such maintenance (or lack thereof) caused the defect.
Too often, large companies rely on legal intimidation or procedural missteps to avoid honoring valid warranty claims. Gaeto’s insistence that MBUSA show clear and direct evidence that maintenance was deficient and causally linked to the failure reflects a broader consumer rights principle: warranty coverage should not be denied on mere assumptions or internal miscommunications.
The Call for Accountability
Gaeto is requesting that the court not only recognize MBUSA’s warranty obligations but also issue monetary sanctions against both MBUSA and its legal counsel for what he sees as bad-faith litigation tactics. The proposed sanctions—$8,000—aim to compensate him for the unnecessary complications and legal burdens created by MBUSA’s conduct.
This case underscores the vital importance of enforcing transparency and accountability when manufacturers deny warranty claims. If upheld, it could set a critical precedent: Warranty denial must be based on factual, demonstrable evidence—not conjecture, internal process failures, or procedural manipulation.
As this case continues in the Sixth Judicial Circuit Court, consumers across Florida and beyond will be watching closely. The outcome may reaffirm a fundamental principle in warranty law: Manufacturers must prove, not presume, the customer’s fault.