SerpApi.Org
CORRECTION: An earlier version reported that Doug Braham was required to pay S & R Leavitt $11,806.10, but that was incorrect. EastIdahoNews.com apologizes for the error. This version has been updated.
ST. ANTHONY — After two days of testimony, a jury ruled in favor of UTV rental company that accused a Montana man of breaching his rental contract after damaging a UTV during a ride in the Sand Dunes on June 25.
The lawsuit was filed by S & R Leavitt, the parent company of PMS Dune Rentals in St. Anthony, against Doug Braham, of Montana, alleging that he violated the rental contract in four ways:
・Failed to notify PMS of the UTV tipping.
・Continued to use the machine after the incident.
・Allowed an unauthorized person to drive the UTV.
・Failed to pay for repairs to the UTV.
Jurors found that Braham did violate his contract, but was found not liable to pay anything towards S & R Leavitt.
Who are PMS Dune Rentals and S & R Leavitt LLC?
S & R Leavitt LLC is the parent company of PMS Dune Rental, which offers UTV and ATV rentals to individuals for use at the St. Anthony Sand Dunes.
Founded in 2015 and purchased by Reynold Leavitt and Sara Leavitt, the business has been under scrutiny in recent years.
Back in 2019, the business was found to be in violation of Idaho’s insurance code for charging customers for liability insurance on 16 separate occasions, while no insurance policy was in effect for the machines.
Then in 2021, PMS reached a settlement with the Idaho Attorney General’s Office after the office’s Consumer Protection Division initiated an investigation.
The investigation was sparked after multiple complaints were filed by consumers of damaged vehicles, who alleged unnecessary repairs and a lack of itemized billing or work orders.
RELATED | East Idaho dune rental company required to change business practices
Part of the settlement required PMS to change its business practices, which included:
・Provide clear and conspicuous website disclosures related to rental costs;
・Post all documents the company requires customers to sign online;
・Promptly provide consumers with all documents showing evidence of damages, repair costs or charges;
・Promptly refund any money collected that the company can’t document as necessary to cover a repair cost;
・Complete repairs of damaged vehicles with reasonable diligence to limit the company’s economic damages;
・Respond to consumers’ written requests within a reasonable time;
・Respond to complaints from the attorney general’s office within 21 days.
PMS was also required to pay the attorney general’s office $3,500 for fees and costs related to the investigation.
Background
The jury trial focused on an incident that occurred on Aug. 4, 2018, when Braham rented two Polaris RZR UTVs from PMS Dune Rentals for 24 hours.
During this period, Braham used the machines and later returned them to PMS Dune Rentals. An inspection of the UTV showed evidence that the vehicle had tipped onto its side and was damaged.
According to the complaint filed by S & R Leavitt, Braham was sent an invoice of $5,300 to cover the cost of the repairs.
Braham argued with PMS about the damage estimate being too high — exceeding $5,000 — and used his insurance to cover the cost of repairs. However, it was later found that his insurance had no policies that covered the UTV rentals.
S & R Leavitt claims that, as a result, it has been unable to use the machine. That means lost time and money, in addition to the loss of repair costs due to Braham’s refusal to pay for the damage to the vehicle.
Opening arguments
As the trial began, S & R Leavitt, represented by Jerry Reyolds, told jurors that this is a dispute between two businessmen who could not agree on the circumstances.
“They never did get the dispute resolved. That’s why you’re here today,” Reynolds said.
During his opening argument, Reynolds said that despite the damage caused, Leavitt took it upon himself to repair the machines that were damaged out on the dunes. He equated that action with a farmer fixing his machines instead of taking them to the dealership, because dealership repairs would cost too much.
“Based on his knowledge and experience over time, he made repairs that he could,” Reynolds said.
Aside from the repairs that were made, Reynolds said his client never got the engine fixed on the machine that Braham rented. As a result, in 2019, Leavitt traded in the machine, which he believes was worth more before the wreck.
Reynolds asked jurors to consider awarding Leavitt this lost value in the trade-in, the cost of repairs, and the time lost, which they equated to 14 days.
“We just ask you to treat Ren fairly, do what ought to be the number,” Reynolds said. “We do claim the damage, ladies and gentlemen, is not zero.”
Representing Braham, attorney Patrick Davis told the jury that this case is really about one of two things: doing the right thing or a giant payday.
“It’s about the difference between fixing the problem honestly and trying to use a problem to line your pockets,” Davis said.
While he agrees that damage was caused to the rented machine, the attorney said Braham attempted to fix the problems rather than run away.
Davis told the jurors that what was discussed in the plaintiff’s opening is something he and his clients are just now learning. For instance, he claimed this was the first time he and his client heard the “14 days of lost use” claim. In the past, he said, the number was three times that.
The dollar amount for the 14 days of lost time is $20,000, but the original amount suggested was $127,000.
Davis claims that this reduction was done to ensure jurors side with Leavitt and manipulate them. He said that Braham had offered to buy Leavitt a new UTV days after the incident, which Leavitt refused.
The other issue Davis had was that the machine in question was traded in, meaning that since it’s not there to examine, the court will only hear Leavitt’s side of the story. Braham had requested that a licensed mechanic inspect the machine but was refused.
“This wasn’t a simple effort to fix a simple problem; this was an attempt to use a problem — a small problem — to make money,” Davis alleged.
Time lost, repairs and replacement
Leavitt’s testimony highlighted the contract Braham signed, the violations that occurred, the actual cost of the damages, and the efforts Leavitt made to repair the damaged UTV.
Regarding the contract, he said Braham purchased a collision damage waiver for a total of $50. The waiver limited the total cost of repairs to $5,000 but did not cover any extra costs, such as loss-of-use charges.
Leavitt testified that Braham’s waiver was forfeited due to the circumstances surrounding the crash, as he did not notify Leavitt or other PMS staff of the crash, preventing them from inspecting the machine before it was moved.
After determining the extent of the damage, Leavitt said he asked Braham for a $5,300 deposit to cover the cost of repairs. Three hundred dollars of the total amount was a rollover fee, he said, because he noticed the machine had tipped onto its side.
The complaint stated that this deposit was never received from Braham.
Leavitt claims that after adding up his attempts to fix the machine, the labor hours involved, and then the ultimate need to trade it in, the total cost was $13,212.53. However, in 2019, Leavitt traded in the UTV and was given $14,000 for it, despite believing he could’ve gotten $18,000 or $19,000.
Reynolds questioned Leavitt about the defense’s allegations that he traded in the machine to, in effect, destroy evidence.
Leavitt answered that this was not a tactic to destroy evidence, but rather an attempt to cut his losses and obtain a new one so he could start renting to individuals and make up the money he had lost he lost.
Regarding insurance, Leavitt stated that he attempted to use Braham’s insurance policy to cover the cost of the repairs. However, Braham insurance company said that because the driver was not on his policy, his insurance would not cover the repairs.
Braham’s testimony
In his testimony, Braham told the jury that this is the first time since the lawsuit was filed that Leavitt has sought nearly $14,000 in compensation for the damaged UTV.
“It’s probably cost me $16,000 to be here today,” Braham said. “This is all a tremendous waste of your time and money, and my time and money.”
Braham continued that if this had been offered six months to six years ago, he would’ve just paid what Leavitt was asking to be done with the matter.
Looking at the options that were given, Braham testified that within a few months of the initial incident, he was asked to pay $40,000, then $84,000, and finally $125,000.
“This has been expensive gum on my shoe for eight friggin’ years,” Braham said. “The money got so crazy so fast, within a month of this incident.”
During his testimony, Braham said he knew there was a problem and that he did not follow the contract as written. Wanting to make things right, he said he tried to do what was right, but believed he did not cause $5,300 in damage.
At one point, Braham offered to replace the broken UTV with a new one, but given the intensity of Leavitt’s request, he believed the offer wasn’t sufficient to compensate for the damage.
Shady business practice?
When he was cross-examining Leavitt, Davis, attempted to portray to the jury the picture that Leavitt and his businesses filed numerous lawsuits to gain more money from those they rent from.
“Your business model, in fact, is when you get someone, get a client from out of state, is to wait several years after the rental, and then to sue them, isn’t that right?” Davis asked Leavitt.
Leavitt answered that this is not the case, but Davis asked Leavitt whether he had filed 57 lawsuits against former clients, to which he answered that he had.
One lawsuit that was given to Leavitt to verify belonged to an individual from Indiana who was a former client of PMS.
Davis asked when the former client rented from PMS, and Leavitt answered that it was on June 22, 2018. Then, when asked when the lawsuit was filed, the answer was June 21, 2023.
When asked if the total time that had elapsed was four years, 364 days, Leavitt said that was correct. He was asked what Idaho’s statute of limitations is on written contracts; Leavitt said it is within five years.
However, when Davis attempted to show additional lawsuits to Leavitt, Reynolds objected that Davis’s action was improper under a decision by Boyce.
Earlier in the trial, Boyce allowed Davis to bring up other cases involving Leavitt, PMS and S & R to inform jurors of a potential scheme or plan by Leavitt.
However, the issue Boyce saw was that Davis’s going into detail on these other cases, which may cause confusion or even prejudice the jury, outweighed the need to protect the jury by impeaching a witness.
The post Jury finds Montana man violated rental contract, but not required to pay for the damages appeared first on East Idaho News.
