“As an attorney, I always strive to take every case we have as my personal mission, and represent our clients to the best of my ability against manufacturers and dealerships who have the financial backing to push the average consumer around. Our clients are great people—I enjoy interacting with them, and trying to figure out what is the best result for them given the unique circumstances that surround each and every case.”
John Sczepanski has been tirelessly representing consumers in lemon law and other vehicle-related claims since joining Abeel & Associates in 2018. John has resolved hundreds of cases in his lemon law practice across Florida, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Texas. He works to resolve your case as quickly and efficiently as possible. If the matter cannot be resolved out of court, he has extensive litigation experience, and is ready and able to take your case all the way to trial. During his time at Abeel & Associates, John has represented clients in hundreds of court hearings against manufacturers and dealerships from Philadelphia to Miami, and from Atlantic City to Charleston. He’s amassed a winning track record of about 95% in these cases and consistently achieves the best possible results for his clients.
John brings a wealth of experience in consumer rights and dispute resolution to his lemon law practice from his background as an attorney at a full service law firm, as a legal intern and preliminary hearing attorney in a County Public Defender’s Office, and as an intern with the Office of the Pennsylvania Attorney General. His diverse private and public-sector experience informs the persistent, problem-solving attitude that he puts to work for the multi-state lemon law clients that he represents now.
In his spare time, John enjoys hanging out with his friends and family, and playing recreational baseball and basketball.
Representative Cases
In a Magnuson-Moss breach of warranty case, John represented the buyer of a commercial truck with an aftermarket lift kit installed by the dealer at time of purchase. The kit caused substantial issues with the truck’s suspension, but the manufacturer argued that the lift kit was not its responsibility and that the buyer should be barred from claiming damages arising from the resulting vehicle problems. John argued:
- the lift package was sold to the client by the manufacturer’s authorized dealership whose website permitted a truck purchaser to choose the kit as part of the transaction; and
- an average consumer would reasonably expect that equipment and installation advertised and performed by an authorized dealer would be covered by the truck’s factory warranty.
The arbitration panel awarded the client the full loss-in-value amount determined by the expert witness plus additional damages that covered the client’s legal fees and expenses.
In another Magnuson-Moss breach of warranty case, John represented the purchaser of a used vehicle that had been the subject of a prior lemon law claim. Opposing counsel argued that the typical manufacturer’s warranty should not apply on the theory of “buyer beware” (“lemon” designation on vehicle’s title should have been sufficient warning of potential issues). John argued that the language of purchase contract conferred warranty coverage, but also created additional manufacturer duties and responsibilities. The arbitration panel awarded John’s client the full loss-in-value amount and additional damages to compensate for ongoing repair issues.