Coin seller insured his coins only to learn the policy doesn't cover coins

By James R. Hood of ConsumerAffairs

An angry consumer charges that eBay sells insurance that excludes from coverage the exact items it ships, rendering the policy useless. In a federal  class action, lead plaintiff Luke Knowles claims eBay knows its ShipCover insurance excludes entire categories of products from coverage, but doesn't  disclose that to sellers when they buy the insurance.

Knowles said he regularly sells coins on eBay and buys  ShipCover insurance to cover them, according to Courthouse News Service.

When a buyer notified him that a package he sent arrived open, with the coin missing, Knowles says, he refunded the buyer the purchase price and then filed a claim under the ShipCover insurance, but the claim was denied by eBay's insurer, which claimed that the "'item insured is on the list of items that are ineligible for coverage,'" according to the complaint.

"The ShipCover policy excludes from coverage 'coins, bullions, loose diamonds or stones, stocks, bonds, currency, deeds, evidences of debt, travelers checks, money orders, gift certificates, calling cards, lottery tickets, admission tickets, or any other negotiable documents,'" the complaint states.
But Knowles says: "These exclusions are not evident on the checkout page, even though that page offers the insurance sets the insured value, and that determines the price of insurance."

Knowles said he would not have bought insurance to protect coins if he had known that it did not, in fact, cover coins and asserts that no one else would buy such insurance either.

His suit names eBay, eBay Insurances Services, Brown & Brown of Missouri, and Fireman's Fund Insurance Co.

Suit seeks class action status

By Mark Huffman of ConsumerAffairs

The housing collapse of 2008 crushed millions of American home owners but a suit filed in federal court in New York claims it hit minority home owners particularly hard.

The suit, filed on behalf of five Detroit residents and Michigan Legal Services, is against the investment bank Morgan Stanley, claiming it discriminated against black homeowners and violated federal civil rights.

In a statement, the bank said the charges in the suit were without merit and promised a vigorous defense.

Encouraging risky business

The suit is tied to the securitization of mortgage-backed securities, the action that eventually brought on the credit meltdown. It seeks to hold Morgan Stanley accountable for allegedly providing strong incentives to a subprime lender to originate mortgages that were likely to be foreclosed on.

The suit is the first to connect racial discrimination to the mortgage-backed securities that were sold to institutional investors and pension funds. It is also the first case where a prospective class of victimized homeowners is suing an investment bank directly rather than the subprime lender whose loans the bank bought.

The lawsuit was brought by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the ACLU of Michigan, the National Consumer Law Center, and Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, a San Francisco-based law firm. The complaint asks the court to certify the case as a class action.

Stepping forward

"With this lawsuit, real victims of the subprime lending scandal are stepping forward to hold investment banks like Morgan Stanley accountable for the devastation the banks wrought in their lives and in our economy,” ACLU executive director Anthony Romero said. “Illegal practices surrounding mortgage-backed securities robbed people of their homes, violated our civil rights laws and left all Americans holding the bag as our economy teetered on the brink of another Great Depression.”

The five homeowners in the suit received their loans from now-defunct New Century Mortgage Corp., a one-time major player in subprime lending. Many of its loans were eventually purchased by Morgan Stanley, which bundled them into securities.

One of the plaintiffs is Rubbie McCoy of Detroit, who purchased a home through New Century with an adjustable mortgage rate of 12.1 percent.

Dictated the terms

The plaintiffs argue Morgan Stanley provided funds to New Century to originate the loans and dictated the terms of the loans it wanted and ultimately purchased for its securitized pools. It allegedly pushed New Century to issue certain types of loans with no concern about risk, because it made its profit at the outset, when the securities were created and sold.

“Morgan Stanley actively encouraged the proliferation of irresponsible subprime mortgage loans, the complaint charges, in order to feed its hunger for purchasing, pooling, and securitizing mortgage debt for sale to investors,” said Elizabeth J. Cabraser, a partner at Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, and co-counsel for the plaintiffs. “The targeting of communities of color for loans that unfairly raises the risk of default and foreclosure is the quintessential ‘reverse-redlining’ outlawed by the Federal Fair Housing Act.”

Workers say they were forced to work overtime without pay

By Mark Huffman of ConsumerAffairs

Chicago-area temporary workers have filed suit against Walmart and two temporary staffing agencies, claiming the retailer forced temps to appear early for work, stay late to complete work, work through lunches and breaks and participate in trainings without compensation, a violation of federal law.

The suit, supported by the United Food and Commercial Works International union, names Twanda Burk at the primary plaintiff.

“I only get paid minimum wage and yet Labor Ready and Walmart still try to cheat me by not paying me for the time I actually work,” Burk said. “I’ve proven that I’m a good worker, and they just want to take advantage of that.”

Lack of information

The suit claims Labor Ready and QPS, two of the staffing agencies Walmart uses in the Chicago area, failed to provide workers assigned to Walmart stores with information related to their employment, such as employment notices and proper wage payment notices as required by Illinois law.

The suit further maintains Walmart itself failed to keep accurate records of workers’ time as required by federal and state law and has failed to provide workers with forms verifying hours worked. This made it impossible for workers to make claims that they were not paid by the temp agencies for all hours worked, the plaintiffs allege.

The violations of state and federal law are alleged to have occurred in early 2009 and continued up until the present time. In addition to seeking all unpaid wages for the workers, the suit calls for an injunction against Walmart and its temp agencies preventing them from future violations of state labor laws.

“There have been so many times I’ve been told to stay late after my shift to finish stocking the shelves, but I didn’t know they wouldn’t pay me for it,” said Anthony Wright, a temp worker at Labor Ready who has worked at a couple of the Walmart stores in the area since late last year.

More temps for the holidays

Walmart contracts with staffing agencies for the services of hundreds of temporary laborers -- many of whom earn minimum wage -- in Chicago-area stores. The company has said it would hire 50,000 temporary workers to staff its stores for the upcoming holiday season.

“The practices that Walmart and its staffing agencies are engaging in are exactly why the Illinois legislature passed the Illinois Day and Temporary Services Act,” said Chris Williams, of Workers’ Law Office PC, the workers’ attorney. “Workers need critical information to make sure they don’t get cheated on their pay, as they did here. These workers are required to be paid for the time they’ve worked.”

When Walmart received permission to expand in Chicago the union says it promised the Chicago city council to set starting wages at $8.75 per hour but has failed to do so.

The bank allegedly neglected foreclosed neighborhoods in three more cities

By Mark Huffman of ConsumerAffairs

Do banks take better care of foreclosed property in white neighborhoods than in minority communities? A fair housing coalition says they do.

The coalition, made up of the National Fair Housing Alliance (NFHA), the HOPE Fair Housing Center, the South Suburban Housing Center, the Metropolitan Milwaukee Fair Housing Council and the Fair Housing Center of Central Indiana announced a federal housing discrimination complaint against Bank of America Corporation.

The complaint alleges that an undercover investigation found that Bank of America maintains and markets foreclosed homes in white neighborhoods in a much better manner than in black and Latino neighborhoods in Chicago, Milwaukee and Indianapolis.

Eight other cities

The complaint is similar to one filed in September alleging the same activity took place in eight other cities. Bank of America, at that time, denied the charges.

The groups charge their investigation in 13 cities of 505 foreclosed homes owned, serviced or managed by Bank of America demonstrates that it has engaged in a systemic practice of maintaining and marketing its foreclosed, bank-owned homes in a state of disrepair in communities of color while maintaining and marketing real estate owned (REO) properties in predominantly white communities in a much better way.

"Good neighbors are considerate, they take care of their yards, pick up their trash and care for their neighborhoods," said Shanna L. Smith, President and CEO of the National Fair Housing Alliance. "Bank of America is not a good neighbor in communities of color.”

State of disrepair

The complaint says foreclosed homes in minority neighborhoods often have broken windows and doors, water damage, overgrown lawns, trash on the property, and no “for sale” sign. Without a real estate sign, they say, prospective buyers won't know the property is available and neighbors have no way or reporting unauthorized occupants or storm damage.

Bank of America is not alone in being charged with discrimination. In April the same coalition filed a similar complaint against Wells Fargo. At the time it said its investigation of 218 foreclosed properties owned by Wells Fargo showed the lender had engaged in a systemic practice of maintaining and marketing its foreclosed, bank-owned properties in a state of disrepair in minority communities while maintaining and marketing REO properties in predominantly white communities in a far superior manner.

A Supreme Court case could affect your rights

By Mark Huffman of ConsumerAffairs

Next week lawyers will go before the U.S. Supreme Court and present arguments in a case that could determine whether you have the right to resell something you own on eBay or at a yard sale.

The case is Kirtsaeng vs. Wiley, which centers on a graduate student, Supap Kirtsaeng, who bought current textbooks -- published by John Wiley & Sons -- through friends and family in Thailand and sold them online in the United States.

The publisher sued, claiming that the right of first sale did not apply because the books were manufactured overseas, and he was therefore not authorized to sell the books.

The “first sale doctrine” is a common-law concept recognized by U.S. courts for more than 100 years. A coalition of retailers, libraries, educators, Internet companies and associations is worried that a ruling for the publisher in this case could eventually jeopardize that right. In the future, they say, consumers may not be able to sell goods they no longer want without running afoul of the law.

Erosion of ownership rights?

"The sudden erosion of ownership rights is becoming an alarming trend in the United States due to recent federal court decisions,” said Andrew Shore, executive director of the Ownership Rights Initiative (ORI). “Our position is simple: if you bought it, you own it, and you can resell it, rent it, lend it or donate it, and we believe the American people fundamentally agree.”

The case going before the court is far removed from the neighborhood yard sale, however. The publisher charges Kirtsaeng was basically running an import business, buying the textbooks for little money in Thailand and selling them for a large markup in the U.S., while still undercutting the price of the publisher.

ORI is concerned, however, that a decision against the right to resell a purchased product will eventually be expanded to include all types of items. For example, if you sold your old iPhone on eBay, the group says it's possible Apple would demand a cut, since it holds the copyright.

What did Congress intend?

"It is hard to conceive that Congress intended to incentivize manufacturers to move operations overseas, force American consumers to pay higher prices, make it hard for us to donate our own stuff to charity, and cripple the ability of libraries to lend books -- without saying anything like that in the law," said Marvin Ammori, a legal advisor to ORI and an Affiliate Scholar at Stanford Law School's Center for Internet & Society.

Ammori says if the high court rules in favor of Wiley's interpretation, it could be illegal for American consumers and businesses to sell, lend, or give away the things they own, but only if the company happened to have manufactured the goods overseas and put a little copyrighted logo or text on them.  

Our daily look at consumer reviews

By Mark Huffman of ConsumerAffairs

Every day consumers go up against companies who seem to have the upper hand. But if you think you are right, it pays to challenge the company's position. Chris, of Solon, Iowa, is a good case in point. She said her family had coverage from State Farm Insurance for over 30 years when the company denied her claim.

"Recently we did a whole house remodel. Since contractors were in our house while we weren't there, personal items were stored at a relative's," Chris told ConsumerAffairs.com. "The personal items included my jewelry which was scheduled under a separate personal articles policy. When unpacking, I couldn't locate the jewelry."

Chris said she contacted State Farm, who said they couldn't cover the loss since it was over a year sine she had actually seen the jewelry. Case closed? Not for Chris.

"Only problem was the letter clearly stated that my policy considered the jewelry lost upon discovery," Chris said. "This meant that the date of loss was the day when I unboxed everything and realized that the jewelry was missing, not the last known time I saw my jewelry which was the date State Farm considered the items lost. I contacted the state insurance commissioner. State Farm was reprimanded by the insurance commissioner and ordered to pay my claim."

The moral of the story is to contact state or local officials when you think a company is wrong. It could turn out you're right.

Misstep?

First, J.C. Penney alienated many customers with its TV commercial featuring screaming women. The commercials were designed to promote the retailer's new pricing policy, doing away with periodic sales in favor of "everyday low pricing." But Steve, of Ooltewah, Tenn., says "not so fast."

"Just a note to let you know that after being a satisfied J.C. Penney customer for over 40 years, I am through," Chris said. "Your new pricing policy is deceptive. For example, the t-shirts I purchased for $9.99 at Christmas are now $12 each. I noticed similar pricing situations. Great for JCP, not so good for me."

J.C. Penney's makeover is the brainchild of new CEO Ron Johnson, a former executive at Target and Apple. Industry analysts generally applaud his moves, but we can't help noting that a lot of consumers are unhappy.

No more Primatene Mist

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has responsibility for protecting consumers from dangerous, unapproved drugs. But one consumer, Christopher, from Virginia, is not happy the FDA has removed Primatene Mist from the market.

"The FDA has left millions of asthma suffers in limbo over the removal of Primatene Mist and no one cares," Christopher said. "People are having all kinds of problems; in and out of hospitals; attacks; can't afford the high priced replacements that don't work. We need someone to help now."

The FDA removed Primatene Mist from the market December 31 because it contains chlorofluorocarbons as a propellant.  The agency earlier removed prescription-strength albuterol inhalers.   

Law firm says it was defamed for refusing to submit to a BBB "shakedown"

By James R. Hood of ConsumerAffairs

The Better Business Bureau is generally regarded as a rather benign, even stuffy, non-profit that provides somewhat predictable ratings of businesses. But a Southern California law firm uses stronger language in a $200 million lawsuit, calling the BBB a "Mafia-like racket" that uses "blackmail" and "coercion" to set its "bogus ratings."

The Brookstone Law Firm of Newport Beach claims the BBB "heavily favors" firms that pay to join its accreditation program, and that BBB ratings are "intentionally biased and inconsistent," according to Courthouse News Service.

Brookstone says the BBB gave it an 'F' rating and revoked its "accreditation" after it refused to submit to BBB's "shakedown." The suit, filed in Los Angeles Superior Court, names the Better Business Bureau of the Southland and the Council of Better Business Bureaus, headquarted in Arlington, Va.

Brookstone describes itself as "a consumer advocacy law firm that focuses on real estate litigation, business law, criminal law, entertainment law, and intellectual property law" and alleges that the BBB downgraded its rating because it files mass joinder lawsuits, a practice some regard as controversial.

Mass joinders

A mass joinder suit is similar to a class action but instead of being a single claim brought on behalf of an entire class of clients, a mass joinder is a series of individual claims. Proponents say mass joinders serve consumers by spreading the cost of legal representation.

But  in a Sept. 25, 2011, article, the Los Angeles Times quoted the St. Louis Better Business Bureau as saying that mass joinders "can be just another way to separate desperate borrowers from their money -- as much as $5,000 or more in upfront fees."

The St. Louis BBB had warned consumers about mass mailings from law firms that offered mass joinder suits as a way to force lenders to modify the mortgages of troubled homeowners. The BBB warning implied the suits were little more than scams.

Brookstone claims the Connecticut attorney general agrees with its analysis of the BBB.

"In or around November 2010, Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal criticized the BBB's letter-grade rating system as 'potentially harmful and misleading to consumers' following an extensive investigation," Brookstone says in its complaint. "Blumenthal stated: 'I find no reasonable basis for tying rating points to a membership fee -- in essence, creating what could be viewed as a 'pay to play' system, rather than a transparent and equitable 'rating' system.'"

Also that year, ABC News reported that a man had received an A+ rating for his business after paying the BBB's membership fee, though the businesses he registered with the BBB did not exist, Brookstone claims, according to Courthouse News. 

The blood-thinner is no better than aspirin but costs 100 times more, suit charges

By Truman Lewis of ConsumerAffairs

The hot-selling blood-thinner Plavix is blamed for more than ten deaths in two Chicago lawsuits that charge the expensive drug is no better than aspirin, costs 100 times more and increases the risk of heart attack, stroke, internal bldding and other complications.

Bristol-Myers Squibb and Sanofi-Aventis promote the drug heavily for patients at risk of blood clots that could break loose and travel to the brain, heart or lungs -- a condition similar to that currently afflicting Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Besides two lawsuits filed recently in Cook County Court in Chicago, at least 561 other lawsuits have been filed around the country, according to the Courthouse News Service database.

In one of the Cook County cases, lead plaintiff Geraldine Jackson charges the companies "knew or should have known that when taking Plavix, the risk of suffering a heart attack, stroke, internal bleeding, blood disorder, or death far outweigh any potential benefit."

Consumers deceived?

Jackson and other plaintiffs accuse Bristol-Myers and Sanofi-Aventis of deceiving consumers by misrepresenting the risks of Plavix, which they knew about from their own studies.

"Plavix was heavily marketed directly to consumers through television, magazine and Internet advertising," the complaint states. "It was touted as a 'super-aspirin,' that would give a person even greater cardiovascular benefits than a much less expensive, daily aspirin while being safer and easier on a person's stomach than aspirin. Those assertions have proven to be false.

"The truth is, that BMS and Sanofi always knew, or if they had paid attention to the findings of their own studies, should have known, that Plavix was not more efficacious than aspirin to prevent heart attacks and strokes. More importantly though, defendants knew or should have known that when taking Plavix, the risk of suffering a heart attack, stroke, internal bleeding, blood disorder, or death far outweigh any potential benefit."

Plavix is the sixth best-selling drug in the United States, with annual sales of $3.8 billion, although it works no better than aspirin in many cases, according to the complaint. A dose of Plavix costs $4, 100 times more than aspirin, at 4 cents a dose.

Three people died because they took Plavix, according to Jackson's lawsuit. Another lawsuit, filed the same day, claims that seven people died from the drug.

Our daily look at consumer reviews

By Mark Huffman of ConsumerAffairs

Every day consumers go up against companies who seem to have the upper hand. But if you think you are right, it pays to challenge the company's position. Chris, of Solon, Iowa, is a good case in point. She said her family had coverage from State Farm Insurance for over 30 years when the company denied her claim.

"Recently we did a whole house remodel. Since contractors were in our house while we weren't there, personal items were stored at a relative's," Chris told ConsumerAffairs.com. "The personal items included my jewelry which was scheduled under a separate personal articles policy. When unpacking, I couldn't locate the jewelry."

Chris said she contacted State Farm, who said they couldn't cover the loss since it was over a year sine she had actually seen the jewelry. Case closed? Not for Chris.

"Only problem was the letter clearly stated that my policy considered the jewelry lost upon discovery," Chris said. "This meant that the date of loss was the day when I unboxed everything and realized that the jewelry was missing, not the last known time I saw my jewelry which was the date State Farm considered the items lost. I contacted the state insurance commissioner. State Farm was reprimanded by the insurance commissioner and ordered to pay my claim."

The moral of the story is to contact state or local officials when you think a company is wrong. It could turn out you're right.

Misstep?

First, J.C. Penney alienated many customers with its TV commercial featuring screaming women. The commercials were designed to promote the retailer's new pricing policy, doing away with periodic sales in favor of "everyday low pricing." But Steve, of Ooltewah, Tenn., says "not so fast."

"Just a note to let you know that after being a satisfied J.C. Penney customer for over 40 years, I am through," Chris said. "Your new pricing policy is deceptive. For example, the t-shirts I purchased for $9.99 at Christmas are now $12 each. I noticed similar pricing situations. Great for JCP, not so good for me."

J.C. Penney's makeover is the brainchild of new CEO Ron Johnson, a former executive at Target and Apple. Industry analysts generally applaud his moves, but we can't help noting that a lot of consumers are unhappy.

No more Primatene Mist

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has responsibility for protecting consumers from dangerous, unapproved drugs. But one consumer, Christopher, from Virginia, is not happy the FDA has removed Primatene Mist from the market.

"The FDA has left millions of asthma suffers in limbo over the removal of Primatene Mist and no one cares," Christopher said. "People are having all kinds of problems; in and out of hospitals; attacks; can't afford the high priced replacements that don't work. We need someone to help now."

The FDA removed Primatene Mist from the market December 31 because it contains chlorofluorocarbons as a propellant.  The agency earlier removed prescription-strength albuterol inhalers.   

Our daily look at consumer reviews

By Mark Huffman of ConsumerAffairs

The Government Grant Scam has been around a long time, and apparently, has a new wrinkle or two. Alicha Burlson, of Lincoln City, Ore., reports receiving a call from a woman telling her she had been awarded a grant of $8,400 to further her education. It just so happens that Alicha had, indeed, applied for an education grant a month earlier.

“She told me the information on my address and made sure it was correct,” Alicha told ConsumerAffairs.com. “Then she said I needed to call a number and talk to another person. When I called the number, the gentleman said that he received the information and wanted my bank's routing number and checking account. I feel silly but I did give it to him, then he said to receive the money I needed to donate 155 dollars to a charity. I told him I would not donate because I have no money and he said you must have cash to get grant. I repeated that I would not donate.”

Alicha should immediately contact her bank's fraud department since the man has her bank information. Any money she had in the account is probably gone. It's disturbing that the scammers had her address, suggesting they are taking more care in selecting their victims and not choosing them at random. The charitable donation demand is a new wrinkle. Chances are, the “charity” is one operated by the scammer.

Being followed

Mary Beth, of Rosamon, Calif., felt she had plenty of Dermitage Anti-Aging System product and cancelled her prescription when she moved at the end of December. But Dermitage followed her to her new address.

“I received the product at my new address in February, unopened, and I was going to send it back and request a return mailing slip,” Mary Beth said. “They automatically had charged me and refused to take back the product because they had 'notified me by e-mail' and therefore I could not return the product I did not request and they continue to charge me for the following month.”

Mary Beth should contact her credit card company and report it as an unauthorized charge. Unless the company can provide a proof of purchase, it will have to return the money.

Bad timing

Amanda, of Manteca, Calif., says she switched cell phone carriers from Verizon Wireless to Virgin Mobile last week. Everything was smooth, she said, expect the final bill.

“I called today to find out the balance due, and they told me I had to pay my entire bill; including all taxes and fees,” Amanda said. “I have used the service for approximately days out of the month and 10 minutes of use this billing period. My bill was $44.02 so that comes out to $4.40 per minute!”

Most cell phone companies do not prorate their bills, even though Amanda thinks that was the fair thing to do. If she didn't want to pay the overlap, she should have timed her move to Virgin Mobile near the end of the billing cycle.

Our daily look at consumer reviews

By Mark Huffman of ConsumerAffairs

When you use a tax preparation software, it performs the calculations for you. But Randy, of Fort Mohave, Ariz., suggests double checking it with a calculator. He said his 2010 return, prepared with TurboTax, was audited by the IRS and, as a result, he owed an extra $3,500.

“Essentially, due to no fault or negligence of my own, the 2010 software malfunctioned while calculating my taxable income, errors so profound that it's obvious upon close scrutiny of the 1040 Form,” Randy told ConsumerAffairs.com. “Since I blindly trusted the Turbo Tax service, I never reviewed the hardcopies e-filed, believing all to be in order. Much to my chagrin, I did review the 1040 Form after the IRS notice and saw the error almost instantly.”

Randy says TurboTax denied his claim under the company's accuracy guarantee. It's worth remembering that, ultimately, it's the taxpayer's responsibility to ensure the information on the tax return is accurate.

Fix it yourself

We see a lot of complaints about flat screen TV sets that have to repaired just as soon as they go out of warranty. Consumers understandably are frustrated and angry. Richard, of Detroit, Mich., says he got no help from Samsung, but did find help on the Internet.

“I repaired the tv myself for $20.00 in parts from Radio Shack and a YouTube video,” Richard said. “No more Samsung products for me.”

Blown capacitors are a common problem on these TV sets. They aren't that hard to replace and, indeed, there are plenty of how-to videos online.

Read the contract

Bonnie, of Del Ray Beach, Fla., said she tried the free trial of Right Size Smoothies and was disappointed in the outcome. She says she wasn't disappointed in the product so much, but in how the “free trial” worked out.

“I ordered Lean Cocoa Bean and Skinni Vanilliy and received Lean Cocoa Bean and Very Berry,” Bonnie said. “I thought oh well, still a variety. The berry was very sweet and the cocoa bean made me feel sluggish and not quite up to par afterwards. I called to return and cancel and was told that I should have read the agreement that states if I open both cans the trial period becomes null and void. The best they can do is break the 119.80 into two payments. Why order two flavors if you can only try one?”

Good question. In addition to reading the contract – always a good idea – it seems the customer service rep could have explained that.

Judge allows suit to proceed despite statute of limitations

By James R. Hood of ConsumerAffairs

A couple whose 3-month-old daughter died in 2004 can sue the makers of a baby sling despite a statute of limitations and despite the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) finding that the death was a "freakish accident," a federal judge ruled, according to Courthouse News Service.

Ann Heneghan placed her 3-month old daughter, Cathleen Delia Ross, in the Nojo Original Baby Sling for approximately 10 to 15 minutes while shopping in October 2004. When Heneghan tried to put Cathleen back in her car seat, she noticed the child was unresponsive and called paramedics. The child was resuscitated, but eventually found to be brain dead and taken off life support.

Heneghan and her husband John Ross say they were originally told that Cathleen had died from Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS), and that the medical examiner never mentioned the Nojo sling as a possible cause of death.

"Asphyxia by snugli"

The death was reported to the CPSC, which investigated and called the infant's death a "terrible, freakish accident" involving SIDS and found the sling was not defective, even though the suit says an emergency room doctor called the case "asphyxia by snugli."

But the commission was later to find that similar slings had been implicated in multiple infant deaths and in March 2010, warned that parents should exercise extreme caution when using the slings and said it had learned of at least 14 deaths associated with sling-type carriers in the last 20 years.

A few days later, Infantino LLC recalled one million infant slings following reports of three infant deaths. That's when Heneghan and Ross say they first became aware that the Nojo sling might have played a role in Cathleen's death.

Though the recalled sling was a different brand, it was allegedly of the same type. The commission also emailed Heneghan with its new warning about the suffocation hazard posed by slings in the first few months of life.

According to the suit, Heneghan then contacted the medical examiner who had conducted the original investigation and discovered for the first time that her daughter's death was the result of positional asphyxiation -- not Sudden Infant Death Syndrome as she had been told previously.

No warning

The suit claims that the sling's manufacturer, Crown Crafts Infant Products, failed to warn consumers that the sling should not be used with infants under four months old because of asphyxiation dangers. Henegan later amended her suit to include Dr. William Sears. She says she bought the Nojo sling after reading about it in Sears' parenting guide, "The Baby Book."

In a motion for summary judgment, Sears and Crown Crafts said a three-year statute of limitations bars the couple's suit. But U.S. District Judge Robert Bryan denied the motion. The case is set to go to trial on June 4. 

Our daily look at consumer reviews

By Mark Huffman of ConsumerAffairs

Paula, of Jackson, N.J., has an expensive problem. She says she was booking flights for her parents on Expedia when the transaction failed to complete. When she called customer service, she said she was told the transaction was suspended because the price of the tickets had just gone up. She said the representative asked if she wanted to confirm the flights and she said she told him no, and later booked reservations on another site.

“One week later on my credit card statement I see a charge for that Expedia flight - never received a confirmation email concerning the flight, no documentation whatsoever,” Paula told ConsumerAffairs.com. “I called them again to get this straightened out and the rep said it was some sort of 72 hour authorization thing - he said no to worry. So I didn't.”

Turns out, she should have. She says the purchase is still on her card and Expedia tells her they have no record of any of her calls to customer service.

“They said that the airline is not going to refund the ticket - a ticket I never confirmed,” she said. If anyone has any ideas, please contact me. I have till the middle of the month to get the charge dispute settled or else I am stuck paying it.”

Paula might try calling her credit card company's fraud department. Technically, she can argue that the charge is “unauthorized,” since she says she specifically did not confirm it. It will be up to Expedia to provide the authorization proof. The stakes are pretty high, since Paula said the charge is for $3,000.

Will this movie ever end?

Consumers are still getting collection notices from the now-defunct Hollywood Video. Jeff, of Martinez, Calif., is one of the most recent to file a complaint.

“I'm receiving collections notices from ARM solutions about a past account with Hollywood Video,” Jeff said. “Our account was in good standing when the local store closed. Collections company does not answer calls and has failed to provide documentation that debt is actually owed. This is a fraudulent attempt to collect money based on poor accounting practices and corporate greed.”

Since Hollywood Video closed its doors, several debt collectors have been involved in contacting its former customers with claims of past due amounts. At the time of its closing, Hollywood Video contracted with Credit Control Services to collect an estimated $244 million. Last May the liquidating trust for Hollywood Video settled with a number of states, reacting to consumers like Jeff. Within five days after Jeff was first contacted, the collector was required to send a written notice telling him the amount owed; the name of the creditor ; and what action to take if he believes he does not owe the money.

Satisfied, sort of

Beth, of Jacksons Gap, Ala. wants us to know that, despite earlier problems getting satisfaction from Eden Pure, the company has agreed to a full refund.

“We would not buy another one but are happy we did not have to eat the $400 we paid,” Beth said.

Beth says she knows people who have been happy with their Edenpure heaters, but she's among the consumers who found the space heater unsatisfactory.

Suit says company deceived customers by not revealing the problem

By Truman Lewis of ConsumerAffairs

Echoing a complaint that will be familiar to many readers, General Electric Co. is being sued by a consumer who says its front-loading washing machines have design defects that give a moldy and mildewy odor to clothes.

The complaint, filed in federal court in Newark, New Jersey, claims the washers fail to clean and rid themselves of byproducts of washing, fostering an atmosphere conducive to mold and mildew. The suit claims GE hid from consumers the need to run extra cycles of hot water or bleach to combat mold.

"I am unable to close the door of the washing machine, due to the overwhelming smell of mold that continues to increase," said Marcus of Dublin, Ohio, in a complaint to ConsumerAffairs.com. "The drain on the bottom is always full of water that has an awful odor. My wife is very allergic to mold and has had continued respiratory problems for the last several months. Our clothes and towels smell of mold and I am ready to put this washer out on the curb."

“Items washed in the washing machines smell foul due to the mold problems,” claims the lawsuit by Stanley Fishman of West Orange, New Jersey, seeking group, or class-action, status. “GE also fails to disclose the extraordinary maintenance and associated expenses that its washing machines require to combat the accumulation of mold, mildew and biofilm.”

Patti of Cedar Creek, Texas, described in detail the measures she used to try to rid her GE front-loaded of mold:

"I bleached it once a week to try to keep it from growing. By 8 months, the mold smell was horrible. I peeled back the gasket and there was mold all around. From then on, I alternated with bleach and vinegar," she told ConsumerAffairs.com. "I called the warranty company and they said they never heard of such a problem and to just keep spraying it with bleach. Fast forward 3 years and bottles of bleach and vinegar later, the laundry room smells of mold as well as all of our clothing."

The complaint claims GE violated the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, breached express and implied warranties, and unjustly enriched itself. It seeks unspecified compensatory damages.

Suit says Hertz charged too much sales tax

By Truman Lewis of ConsumerAffairs

A class action lawsuit accuses Hertz of gypping customers by charging too much sales tax.

The suit, filed in U.S. District Court in New York by Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik, LLP, charges that Hertz violated New York and other states' laws by issuing customer coupons and discounts, while knowingly imposing sales tax on the pre-discount total.

This unlawful practice has resulted in the overcharging of Hertz customers, according to the suit.  

"This overcharge scheme by a multinational multibillion dollar corporate giant may have cheated Hertz's customers out of many millions of dollars," the law firm said in a press release.

"New York and other states have passed legislation and regulations disallowing this predatory behavior and to protect the public from this unscrupulous business practice that attempts to overcharge customers under the veil of the tax code," the firm said. "The class complaint seeks Hertz's compliance with these laws and regulations and the return of all improperly charged costs and fees to class members."

Largest class-action settlement from financial crash

Bank of America has settled a long-simmering lawsuit focusing on its 2008 acquisition of Merrill Lynch, closing another chapter in the infamous financial collapse that rocked the nation that year.

According to the suit, when Bank of America announced on September 14, 2008 that it planned to buy Merrill Lynch, it failed to disclose the dire financial situation at Merrill Lynch, which would end up suffering over $27 billion in losses that year. Ultimately, Bank of America -- which had already been awarded $25 billion of bailout money -- requested another $20 billion.

According to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), Bank of America gave Merrill Lynch permission to pay out bonuses totaling as much as $5.8 billion before Bank of America shareholders voted on whether to acquire the ailing bank.

Dramatic period

The planned sale was announced during one of the most dramatic weekends of the prolonged financial crisis, with banking giant Lehman Brothers declaring bankruptcy the very next day. The acquisition was finalized on January 1, 2009.

According to a Wall Street Journal reportat the time, Bank of America gave up 0.8595 shares of its own stock for every Merrill Lynch common share, representing around $29 for each share.

In an opinion, Judge Kevin Castel of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Manhattan said that the settlement was "fair, reasonable and adequate," and followed a case that was "hard fought." The judge's approval formalized the settlement, which was initially proposed by Bank of America in September of last year.

In a statement in September, Bank of America maintained that it was not liable. CEO Brian Moynihan said that the settlement "removes uncertainty and risk and is in the best interests of our shareholders," and on Friday Moynihan said that his company's "primary focus is on the future."

The $2.4 billion agreement holds the distinction of being the largest settlement of a securities class-action growing out of the 2008 financial collapse.

The case is one of several growing out of what the Wall Street Journal in 2009 called the "$50 Billion Deal From Hell." New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman is pursuing another case focused on the acquisition.

 

Companies allegedly agreed not to steal employees from each other

Missouri man sues, claiming the ticket he got infringes his Free Speech rights

By Truman Lewis of ConsumerAffairs

Have you ever flashed your headlights to warn oncoming drivers of a speed trap? Michael Elli did it and got a ticket from a police officer in Ellisville, Mo., a St. Louis suburb.

Now Elli, with the support of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has filed a federal class action lawsuit claiming that Ellisville is violating drivers' First Amendment rights when it tickets them for flashing their headlights.

Elli claims it is the first ticket he has gotten in 35 years of driving. He was cited for violating an Ellisville ordinance that limits flashing lights on vehicles.

Elli said Ellisville Police Chief Tom Felgate told him it's a moving violation and said points would be assessed against him if he was found guilty. He said a municipal judge in Ellisville, population 9,200, told him the fine would be $1,000. Elli then entered a plea of not guilty.

His suit seeks an injunction against the city, even though the charges were dropped before the case came to trial.

Ellisville, which in 2009, was ranked #25 by Money magazine on its annual Best Places to Live in America list, is in western St. Louis County, near Interstates 64, 70 and 55. That section of the county is well-known to motorists for enthusiastic speed enforcement by small-town police.

View Larger Map

New Jersey woman’s receipt contained pejorative phrase “Ching Chong”

The photo has gone viral around the web: a CVS receipt listing the customer as “Lee, Ching Chong.”

The customer, whose actual name is Hyun Lee, is outraged, and has filed a million-dollar lawsuit over the racially-charged matter.

The saga began on February 7, when Lee arranged for photos to be developed at a CVS in Egg Harbor, N.J. When she went to get the photos, she says, she found the derogatory name on her receipt.

Outraged, Lee emailed CVS customer service.

"Do you think it’s funny?” Lee railed in her email. It’s very disturbing to me!!!!... why doesn’t he just call me Chink! It has the same derogatory meaning!!!!!"

According to the suit, Lee’s email received a reply from “Dee,” who assured Lee that “this incident will be addressed at store level and William [the allegedly offending employee] will be counseled and trained.”

“Horrified”

“Honestly I’m just horrified about this whole thing,” Lee told CBS 2. “It just brought back all the memories of growing up as a minority.”

‘Ching Chong’ is a very pejorative, racial slur meant for Asians,” Lee’s lawyer Susan Chana Lask told all-news 1010 WINS.  “CVS touts that they make $300 billion a year on their filings, then $1 million should be enough to teach them a lesson that their employees should not be getting away with this,” Lask said.

The suit asks for $1 million and cites “injury, mental anguish, severe emotional distress, harm, and damages.”

Wants employee fired

Lask also told ABC News that Lee wants William fired.

“It appears that the employee is still there,” Lask told ABC. “She will not return to that CVS until that employee is removed.”

In a statement, CVS said that "CVS/Pharmacy is committed to treating all of our customers with dignity and respect and we have a firm non-discrimination policy. We take this matter very seriously as the allegations in the complaint describe behavior that is unacceptable and not in keeping with our values or our policies. We are looking into this matter but cannot comment further due to the pending litigation."

Individual claimants will receive bigger payouts

A settlement in a lawsuit against EA Games has been modified to triple the amount of money that class members will be eligible to receive.

Per the modifications, each class member will receive more money from the $27 million total settlement fund. This is apparently because there are fewer individuals in the class than was originally anticipated.

The modified terms provide that claimants will get $20.37 for every last-generation game on Xbox, Windows PC, GameCube, and PlayStation 2. This amount is considerably higher than the $6.79 that these claimants would have received under the original terms.

Similarly, the amount for the most recent generation of games for Wii, PlayStation 3, and Xbox 360 has risen from $1.95 to $5.85.

"Blatantly anticompetitive conduct"

The suit, filed in 2011, alleged that EA Sports engaged in "blatantly anticompetitive conduct" by entering into "an unlawful and anticompetitive series of exclusive agreements with the National Football League, the NFL Players Union, Arena Football League and the National Collegiate Athletic Association ('NCAA')," thereby allegedly driving its competition out of the market and driving up the price of its own games.

According to the suit, "[p]rior to signing the exclusive agreements referred to above, Electronic Arts charged $29.95 for its flagship product Madden NFL," whereas once the alleged agreements went into effect, the price "increased nearly seventy percent to $49.99."

The suit alleged that EA violated federal and California state antitrust laws, as well as California consumer protection laws. EA denied that it ever charged inflated prices for its videogames, and also disagreed that there was a relevant market limited to "interactive football videogames."

$27 million settlement fund

Under the original settlement agreement, announced in October, EA would pay $27 million into a fund including money that would include money for class members after lawyers' fees and other costs were deducted.

In addition to the monetary changes, class members have been given additional time to file a claim. The deadline has been extended from March 15 to May 15. Claimants can do so at the official settlement website.