Current Events in March 2004

Dallas officials say they will install fire suppressant technology on the City's Ford Crown Victoria police cars and seek reimbursement from the Ford Motor Company, saying they will not leave the safety of police officers to chance.

"Dallas' Ford police cars have been involved in a number of high-speed rear crashes both before and after the tragic death of Officer Patrick Metzler in October 2002. An accident on Feb. 8, which involved six people, resulted in a massive gasoline spill that had to be mopped out of gutters by fire fighters," said City Attorney Madeleine Johnson.

"Any rear-end crash to a Ford police car holds the potential to create a fireball that could burn police officers and bystanders to death," she said. "Call it sheer luck - or a miracle, if you will - but that night there was no spark to ignite the fuel. The next accident could be different. We cannot leave the safety of Dallas police and its citizens to luck."

Dallas will begin retrofitting 775 active duty Ford Crown Victorias and retired police vehicles used by civilian employees by the end of the month, she said. The work should take about 30 days and cost the city about $271,000, or about $350 per car.

Dallas will buy a fire suppression product that uses a plastic panel filled with six pounds of fire suppression powder, which completely covers the rear of the fuel tank, between the tank and the rear axle. In a rear crash, the axle or other components would shatter the panel, releasing a cloud of powder which would mix with any fumes from gasoline leaking from the tank. The powder makes it impossible for any fumes to ignite.

The technology is similar to that used by the military and in racing cars to prevent fires in the event of crashes.

The city will ask Ford to reimburse the money as a necessary safety retrofit, Johnson said.

"We continue to believe that Ford has a duty as the nation's primary supplier of police cars to manufacture them in such a way as to make them safe for routine police work, a large part of which puts them on roadways where they are targets for high speed vehicles," Johnson said.

Ford's attempt to shore up fuel tank protection by shielding certain components that could be puncture sources in crashes does not offer enough protection, Johnson added. Two Dallas police cars involved in high-speed, rear-end crashes resulting in fire or gasoline spills since the death of Officer Metzler in Oct. 2002, were equipped with Ford shields, she noted.

An analysis of the most recent crash on Feb. 8, showed two leak sources: around a valve at the top of the tank, and a puncture at the bottom of the tank that allowed the tank to drain completely. Firefighters had to use absorption equipment to mop the gutters of fuel.

The analysis further showed that the puncture was caused by a bracket that covers one of the straps holding the fuel tank in place. The puncture occurred in an area of the tank not protected by Ford's retrofitted shield system.

Last July, the City of Dallas ran its own safety tests of the Ford Crown Victoria, concluding Ford's second attempt at making the cars safer - a trunk lining to keep police equipment from puncturing the tank - created a whole new danger: the potential of massively splitting the fuel tank.

Ford roundly criticized the methodology used in these tests, claiming its own testing showed the trunk liner and other safety improvements prevented punctures up to 75 mph. However, later deposition testimony in ongoing lawsuits revealed that Ford never actually performed fuel system integrity crash tests on the trunk liner.

The City of Dallas is among dozens of cities and counties suing Ford over the safety of Crown Victoria police cars. An investigation in December by the Detroit Free Press found that 30 people, including 18 police officers, had died in fiery rear-impact crashes in the Crown Victoria.

Since 1999, there have been at least four Dallas Police Department Ford Crown Victorias involved in high speed rear crashes, including the one that took the life of Officer Metzler on Oct. 23, 2002.

A Pennsylvania appeals court has ruled that lawsuits accusing H&R Block Inc. of charging unnecessary fees for filing tax forms electronically can be treated as class actions and don't have to be arbitrated.

Erin McNulty and Brian Erzar sued block, claiming the company charged clients millions of dollars in unnecessary e-filing fees. The plaintiffs alleged that Block did not adequately indicate that customers could avoid the fees by filing traditional paper returns.

Block's lawyers argued that a provision in a separate contract that the clients signed with Household Bank requires any claims to be settled through arbitration, not a class action. The agreement with Household Bank was for refund anticipation loans related to the clients' tax returns.

But in the court's opinion, Pennsylvania Superior Court Judge Richard Klein held that an e-filing fee was a separate and distinct transaction from the application for the loan and wasn't covered by the arbitration clause.

"The trial court found that charging a fee to push the 'send' button (basically the equivalent of putting a stamp on an envelope) was too attenuated to the loan application process and so was exempt from the arbitration case," Klein wrote.

"We believe the court's decision runs counter to the weight of state and federal law, and are considering an appeal of the decision to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court," Block said in a statement.

The case now returns to the Lackawanna County, Pa., Court of Common Pleas for trial.

Block has faced consumer class actions and criticism dating to the mid-1990s for how it hss marketed its high-interest refund anticipation loans.

The company settled a Texas lawsuit in June that called for it to distribute $26 million in cash, as well as tax preparation and software coupons, to 700,000 tax service customers. In April, a federal judge in Chicago rejected Block's proposed settlement in a similar class-action suit. That suit is pending.

The New Jersey Division of Consumer Affairs sued Sleepy's Inc. and 1-800-Sleepy's, charging the mattress chain with violating the state's Consumer Fraud Act by selling defective merchandise and failing to keep its delivery promises.

The state's five-count complaint was filed in Bergen County Superior Court, and The national chain operates 72 retail stores in New Jersey and routinely advertises its products in television and radio commercials, advertising circulars and newspapers, the suit noted.

"Beds and mattresses are not cheap. They can cost consumers hundreds and, in some cases, thousands of dollars," Consumer Affairs Director Reni Erdos said. "When bedding retailers attempt to take advantage of consumers, as we allege Sleepy's and 1-800-Sleepy's have done, consumers stand to lose a lot of money, not to mention their peace of mind."

The complaint lists a number of allegations, including:

• misleading consumers regarding the companies' exchange policy and consumers' right to receive a refund;
• failing to deliver merchandise on the contracted date of delivery and failing to notify consumers of their inability to deliver the merchandise as promised;
• delivering defective and/or damaged merchandise;
• delivering merchandise that was different from what consumers ordered;
• refusing to provide refunds to consumers who complained that they received defective merchandise;
• promising, then failing to send, an inspector to consumers' homes to inspect defective or damaged merchandise or only conducting inspections after extensive follow-up by consumers;
• failing to respond to dissatisfied consumers' telephone calls, letters and/or email messages in a timely manner;
• failing to specify the duration of a sale in an advertisement; and
• advertising that a sale contains "The Lowest Prices in Our History" when, in fact, the same merchandise has been offered for sale previously at the same price.

"Companies that do business in New Jersey are expected to deal with consumers in a fair and honest fashion and to adhere to the State's consumer protection laws," Attorney General Peter C. Harvey. "Where we find abuses in the marketplace, we will work to ensure that companies responsible for violating State law and harming consumers are held accountable."

This is the second time in recent months that Consumer Affairs has brought suit against a bedding retailer. In December, Consumer Affairs filed suit against Rockaway Bedding alleging the retailer engaged in unscrupulous business practices by, among other things, selling defective merchandise to consumers and engaging in fraudulent advertising.

"Sleepy's was extremely surprised by the allegations in the complaint and immediately commenced an investigation to determine the source of the allegations," the company said in a prepared statement.

Sleepy's has 300 store locations nationwide.