Approximately three years after he purchased a vehicle from Hyundai Motor America, Inc. HMA, Bryan Monroe brought this action against HMA claiming breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, and revocation of acceptance. Both parties moved for summary judgment. The trial court granted summary judgment to HMA and denied the motion filed by Monroe. Monroe appeals. Because we conclude that the trial court correctly found that Monroe failed to present competent evidence of damages, we affirm. In November 1999, Monroe purchased a 1999 Hyundai Sonata from HMA dealer SouthTowne Hyundai. The vehicle had an odometer reading of 6,336 miles at the time of purchase. Monroe received with the vehicle the 1999 Sonata Owner’s Handbook, which contained a new vehicle limited warranty providing for “repair or replacement of any component originally manufactured or installed by Hyundai Motor Company or Hyundai Motor America HMA that is found to be defective in material or workmanship under normal use and maintenance, except any item specifically referred to in the section “What is Not Covered.” In the “What is Not Covered” section, incidental or consequential damages including inconvenience, loss of time, loss of use, or commercial loss were excluded from coverage.
In an affidavit submitted in support of his opposition to HMA’s motion for summary judgment, Monroe chronicled the repair history of his vehicle. He took the car to an authorized dealer for repairs on at least 12 occasions. The car experienced repeated engine and electrical system problems, including problems with dimming lights and loss of engine power. The car was towed to the dealership twice because it would not start, and Monroe experienced problems with the windshield wiper jets and the blinker assembly. The air conditioning system stopped functioning at least twice. The repair visits included at least two visits for recall-related items.
