Free Case Review

1 Vehicle
2 Documents
3 Notes
4 Contact
  • Vehicle Information

    Please tell us a little about your vehicle.

John A. Sczepanski
John A. Sczepanski
John A. Sczepanski

“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 surrounds each and every case.”

John has been tirelessly representing Pennsylvania and New Jersey consumers in lemon law and other vehicle-related claims since joining Abeel & Associates in 2018. His prior law jobs include working at multiple-service law firm, serving as a legal intern and preliminary hearing attorney for the Montgomery County Public Defender’s Office, and interning with the Office of the Pennsylvania Attorney General. That private and public-sector work gave him a wealth of varied courtroom and dispute resolution experience that informs his work for the Pennsylvania and New Jersey consumers he represents now.

During his time at Abeel & Associates, John has represented clients in hundreds of court hearings against manufacturers and dealerships from Philadelphia to Pittsburgh, and from Atlantic City to Bergen County. He’s amassed a winning track record of about 95% in these cases and consistently achieves the best possible results for his clients.

In his spare time when he’s not working, 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, represented buyer of a commercial truck with an aftermarket lift kit installed by the dealer at time of purchase. Kit caused substantial issues with the truck’s suspension, but manufacturer argued that the lift kit was not its responsibility and buyer should be barred from claiming damages arising from the resulting vehicle problems. We argued: (1) the lift package was sold to our client by the manufacturer’s authorized dealership whose website permitted a truck purchaser to choose the kit as part of the transaction; and (2) 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 our client the full loss-in-value amount determined by our expert witness plus additional damages that covered our Firm’s legal fees and expenses.

In another Magnuson-Moss breach of warranty case, represented purchaser of a used vehicle that had been the subject of a prior lemon law claim. Opposing counsel argued that 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). We argued that the language of purchase contract conferred warranty coverage, but also created additional manufacturer duties and responsibilities. The arbitration panel awarded our client the full loss-in-value amount and additional damages to compensate for ongoing repair issues.

Recent Results

Get a New Car, Full Refund or Cash Settlement 2020-2015 model years, all types of vehicles