C District Ct. (Mecklenburg): Hurd. v. Priority Automotive- Treble Damages for Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices

Summary:

Brad Hurd purchased a 2018 Honda Accord from Priority Automotive Huntersville for $26,400. Unbeknownst to him, the vehicle had been in an accident in 2017, while still a dealership demonstrator, with repairs exceeding $10,000 (more than 25% of the car’s value). North Carolina law, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20-71.4, required disclosure of such damage. Instead, Priority affirmatively answered “NO” on the damage disclosure statement and gave Hurd a purchase agreement with the wrong VIN.

When Hurd later sought to trade in the Accord, a CarFax report revealed the undisclosed wreck. Even then, Priority’s sales manager attempted to conceal the accident by withholding or substituting vehicle history reports.

The District Court found violations of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1 (Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices), awarded Hurd $16,172 in actual damages (the difference between purchase price and value), trebled under Chapter 75 to $48,516, plus $2,800 compensatory damages for lost time, $10,000 in punitive damages, and $118,725 in attorneys’ fees. In total, the dealership was ordered to pay over $180,000, including fees and costs.

Commentary:

Very nice work by Shane Perry.

This state court judgment is a striking reminder of the robust remedies available under North Carolina’s Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The court not only trebled actual damages, but also awarded punitive damages and a six-figure attorneys’ fee award.

Consumer debtor attorneys will immediately contrast this with the much smaller recoveries often seen in bankruptcy court for stay or discharge violations. While bankruptcy judges in North Carolina do award compensatory damages and attorneys’ fees, punitive damages are typically restrained, often capped in the $1,000–$5,000 range, and fee awards are rarely as expansive as those seen in Chapter 75 cases.  Bankruptcy judges also tend to be hostile to parallel claims that stay or discharge violations are illegal under N.C.G.S. 75 as well,  avoiding trebling damages and often making their findings of creditor abuse rather impotent- as Jamie Dimon,  the CEO of JPMorgan Chase,  said to Sen. Elizabeth Warren when confronted with his bank's illegal activities-  “So hit me with a fine. We can afford it.”

The lesson is that consumer protection litigation in state court can generate fee-shifting and punitive exposure far beyond what bankruptcy courts would award. In a case like Hurd’s, had Priority’s conduct arisen in the context of a bankruptcy stay violation—for example, wrongfully repossessing or concealing a vehicle—damages would likely have been limited to actual harm and more modest sanctions.

For debtor’s counsel, this underscores the value of a dual approach:

• Bankruptcy court for quick, clear enforcement of federal rights like the stay and discharge.

• State court Chapter 75 claims for broader deterrence and meaningful fee awards, particularly in auto fraud, mortgage servicing, or collection abuse cases.

Hurd’s case also illustrates the importance of transparency: a $26,000 Accord turned into a $180,000 liability because of concealment and cover-up. Bankruptcy courts, by contrast, often temper their awards out of concern for proportionality and the continued functioning of creditor systems. State courts applying Chapter 75 show no such reluctance.

With proper attribution,  please share this post.