You are on page 1of 26

12/14/2015 10:45:16 AM

Chris Daniel - District Clerk Harris County


Envelope No. 8217135
By: SHELLEY BOONE
Filed: 12/14/2015 10:45:16 AM

CAUSE NO. 2015-73882


MARK OBERHOLTZER AND
MARK-1 PLUMBING, INC.
Plaintiffs,
v.
CHARLIE THOMAS FORD, LTD.
D/B/A AUTONATION FORD
GULF FREEWAY
Defendant.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF

HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS

113th JUDICIAL DISTRICT

PLAINTIFFS FIRST AMENDED ORIGINAL PETITION


TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
COME NOW, MARK OBERHOLTZER and MARK-1 PLUMBING, INC., Plaintiffs
in the above-styled cause, hereby complaining of CHARLIE THOMAS FORD, LTD.
D/B/A AUTONATION FORD GULF FREEWAY, Defendant, and for this cause of action
would respectfully show the Court as follows:
I.
DISCOVERY CONTROL PLAN
1.

Plaintiffs intend to conduct this cause under a Level Two (2) discovery

control plan, pursuant to Rule 190.3 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
II.
PARTIES AND SERVICE
2.

Plaintiff, MARK OBERHOLTZER (hereinafter referred to as Plaintiff or

Mark), is an individual residing in Galveston County, Texas and may be contacted


through his undersigned attorneys at 2211 Strand, Suite 201, Galveston, Texas 77550.
3.

Plaintiff, MARK-1 PLUMBING, INC. (hereinafter referred to as Plaintiff

or Corporation), is a for-profit corporation incorporated under the laws of the State of


PLAINTIFFS FIRST AMENDED ORIGINAL PETITION

PAGE 1

Texas and may be contacted through its undersigned attorneys at 2211 Strand, Suite 201,
Galveston, Texas 77550.
4.

Defendant, CHARLIE THOMAS FORD, LTD. D/B/A/ AUTONATION

FORD GULF FREEWAY (hereinafter referred to as Defendant), is a Texas limited


partnership with its principal office address as 12227 Gulf Freeway, Houston, Texas,
77034 and may be served with process by serving its registered agent Corporation Service
Company d/b/a CSC-Lawyers Incorporating Service Company at 211 E. 7th St. Ste. 620,
Austin, Texas 78701-3218.
III.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
5.

The exercise of this Courts jurisdiction over the Defendant is proper. This

Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because it avails itself of the privilege of
doing business in the State of Texas, and the subject matter of this action arises under the
common law and statutes of the State of Texas. The amount in controversy exceeds the
minimum jurisdictional limits of this Court.
6.

Venue is proper in Harris County, Texas because all or a substantial part of

the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in Harris County, Texas. TEX.
CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE 15.002(a)(1)
IV.
BACKGROUND
7.

On October 23, 2013. Plaintiff, Mark-1 Plumbing, Inc. (Mark-1) entered

into a transaction with Defendant involving the trade-in of a 2005 Ford F-250 pickup
truck, VIN 1FTSX21P15EC91985, in exchange for a 2012 Ford F-250 pickup truck, VIN
1FT7W2BT2CEA10391, plus an installment sales contract. This was Plaintiffs first and
only transaction with Defendant.
PLAINTIFFS FIRST AMENDED ORIGINAL PETITION

PAGE 2

8.

The transactional documents between Mark-1 and the Defendant included

a Retail Purchase Agreement, on its face applicable to a Seller or Dealer Retail


Purchase Agreement for a Motor Vehicle, which contained an Arbitration Agreement,
and a Conditional Delivery Agreement. While such written documents admittedly
applied to the sale of the new vehicle Mark-1 purchased, they do not apply to the tradedin vehicle and/or they are wholly and completely silent as to subsequent, intervening,
superseding torts committed by the Defendant which breached common law duties owed
to Plaintiffs, such breaches causing severe permanent injury to Plaintiffs and
consequential and punitive damages. Moreover, the Arbitration Clause in particular and
the total documents generally give no indication, nor do they evidence the exchange of
consideration which would reasonably support any contention that such Clause would
limit claims assertable for the Defendants subsequent sale, lease, loan or transfer of the
traded-in vehicle with clearly identifiable markings of Plaintiffs upon it to criminals,
terrorists, jihadists or others of obviously ill-motive.
9.

While waiting for the paperwork to be processed, Plaintiff began peeling off

the Mark-1 Plumbing, Inc. decal located on the trucks doors when Defendants
salesman, Edgar Velasquez, instructed Plaintiff to stop. Mr. Velasquez told Plaintiff not
to worry about the decal and that peeling the decal off would blemish the vehicle paint.
Consistent with Defendants advertising to potential customers to let them handle it
(see Exhibit A), Mr. Velasquez further stated that the dealership had something that
works better for removal and they would use it to remove the decal. In relying on Mr.
Velasquezs statements, Plaintiff ceased peeling off the decal and trusted that the decals
would be removed prior to resale. At no time did Velasquez or any other agent, servant or
employee of the Defendant tell Plaintiff that Defendant would leave the decals on the
PLAINTIFFS FIRST AMENDED ORIGINAL PETITION

PAGE 3

truck, which would be transferred in some fashion to international jihadists conducting


warfare upon innocents in Syria; and, Plaintiff was not in any conceivable way told,
informed or placed on notice that precisely such an incomprehensible and horrific
eventuality would actually occur.
10.

Over the years, Plaintiffs have sold as many as five to ten trucks to different

dealers in Texas. Through these transactions, Plaintiffs found it to be common practice


for dealerships to remove the decals on vehicles prior to reselling them. On none of those
occasions have any of those dealers transferred to international jihadists the traded-in
vehicle with Plaintiffs identifying markings still upon them.
11.

According to a CARFAX Vehicle History Report (see Exhibit B), the vehicle

was listed as a dealer vehicle sold at a Texas auto auction on November 11, 2013. On
December 18, 2013 the vehicle was exported from Houston, Texas and imported to
Mersin, Turkey.
12.

On December 15, 2014,

Caleb Weiss of The Long War


Journal

tweeted

the

following

propaganda image of Plaintiffs Ford


F-250 with an anti-aircraft gun
mounted on it fighting on the front
lines in Syria for Ansar al-Deen, a
jihadist group operating near Aleppo
in Syria. Plaintiffs logo and phone
number were still on the vehicle
door.
PLAINTIFFS FIRST AMENDED ORIGINAL PETITION

PAGE 4

Within 48 hours, the photograph had gone viral via the Internet and multiple news
outlets.
13.

On December 17, 2014, while travelling to Corpus Christi, Mark received a

phone call from his secretary, Juli Hammonds. Ms. Hammonds explained to him the
breaking news stories. His initial reactions were of utter shock and sheer disbelief.
14.

By the end of the day, Mark-1s office, Mark-1s business phone, and Marks

personal cell phone had received over 1,000 phone calls from around the nation. These
phone calls were in large part harassing and contained countless threats of violence,
property harm, injury and even death. These phone calls included, but were not limited
to, individuals who were:
(a) irate and yelling expletives at whomever answered the
phone;
(b) degrading to whomever answered the phone regarding
their stupidity;
(c) singing in Arabic for the duration of the phone call or voice
message recording;
(d) making threats of injury or death against Mark-1s
employees, family, children, and grandchildren in violent,
lurid and grossly specific terms; and,
(e) directing expletive-laced death threats to whomever
answered the phone.
Only a precious few of the calls contained support for the Plaintiffs knowing that Plaintiffs
did not support terrorists. However, that scant number of positive calls in no way
PLAINTIFFS FIRST AMENDED ORIGINAL PETITION

PAGE 5

mitigated or eliminated the shock, fear, anxiety, mental anguish, humiliation and
degradation Plaintiffs and their employees, family members and relatives experienced
and continue to experience.
15.

Plaintiffs secretary, Juli Hammonds, refused to return to the office as she

feared for her life and well-being. Mark himself was fearful. Marks entire family was
terrified. As a result, Mark was forced to shut Mark-1s office and all business operations
down for seven days, costing substantial lost revenues and business good will.
16.

During this forced shutdown, Mark left Texas City, Texas and travelled to

McAllen, Texas as to avoid having to deal with this uncontrollable and terrifying situation.
He had initially planned to be out of town for only two days. However, due to the
magnitude and growing hostility of the situation, he remained out of town for nine days.
All this while, Mark-1s revenues were lost and the companys reputation and standing in
the business and local community was irretrievably damaged.
17.

While in McAllen, Texas, Mark called the Defendant to discuss the situation.

Defendant stated that they never touched the truck, but instead sent it to Dallas, Texas.
Defendant stated that it was not their responsibility to remove the decal prior to sending
it to Dallas, Texas and it expressed not the slightest regret, concern or even compassion
with Marks horrific situation. Then, the employee of Defendant with whom Mark was
talking hung up on Mark. Callously putting its own profit and convenience entirely over
the needs of its customer, Defendant has made no effort whatever to contact Mark,
attempt in any way to mitigate or resolve his threatening situation of take any
responsibility whatever in causing this appalling situation and no additional contact has
occurred between Plaintiffs and Defendant.

PLAINTIFFS FIRST AMENDED ORIGINAL PETITION

PAGE 6

18.

On or about December 17, 2015, four agents from the United States

Department of Homeland Security arrived at Plaintiffs office in Texas City, Texas. The
Homeland Security Agents met with Vice President of Mark-1 for approximately one to
two hours. During this time period, he was not allowed to leave the premises. After
concluding their investigation, the Homeland Security Agents left him with the sinister
admonition that there are crazy people out there and to protect himself at all times.
19.

In early January 2015, Mark was met by FBI agents at his office. The FBI

Agents conducted a very brief and cordial investigation. After concluding their
investigation, the FBI Agents once again reiterated that Mark must protect himself.
20.

In relying on the advice from both the Homeland Security and FBI Agents,

Mark began carrying around a handgun for personal protection. Additionally, local police
made it routine to include his home and office on its routes. But, these steps in no way
diminish or mitigate the fear, anxiety, mental anguish, and apprehension Mark feels for
his family or that of his family members.
21.

Throughout the duration of this situation, TV stations and news agencies,

both local and national, have constantly contacted Plaintiffs for an interview. Camera
crews were found videotaping Mark-1s and its employees personal automobiles. Camera
crews went to Marks house in an attempt to cover the story. One news crew even went as
far as arriving at Mark-1s secretary, Juli Hammonds, daughters apartment requesting
an interview.
22.

Demonstrating the breadth and depth of the dissemination, Mark has been

contacted by a vast number of news agencies regarding this situation, including, but not
limited to USA Today, CBS, NBC, and Inside Edition.

PLAINTIFFS FIRST AMENDED ORIGINAL PETITION

PAGE 7

23.

On December 18, 2014, the final episode of the late-night comedy television

series, The Colbert Report, began with the segment Texans Truck in Syria which was a
news story about a Mark-1 Plumbing truck now being used as an anti-aircraft gun in Syria.
This episode was watched by 2.481 million viewers, making it the most watched episode
ever in the shows history. As of December 7, 2015, the segment Texans Truck in Syria
has an additional 67,557 views on Comedy Centrals website. The widespread viewing of
the segment increased the volume of the harassing and threatening phone calls and has
immeasurably added to the suffering of Mark, his family, his employees and their families.
24.

The harassing and threatening phone calls continued for at least three

weeks from when the news story was officially reported. Plaintiffs experienced at least
100-200 phone calls per day over this span of time. Since that time, Plaintiffs continue to
receive one or two phone calls per week. However, whenever ISIS commits an atrocity
that is reported nationally, which occurs with distressing frequency, Plaintiffs receive
more phone calls than normal all over again.
25.

On September 20, 2015, the 67th Primetime Emmy Awards were held. The

Colbert Report was nominated for Outstanding Directing for a Variety Series. As part of
its show time nomination, The Colbert Report included a bit of Texans Truck in Syria.
The 67th Primetime Emmy Awards was watched by 11.9 million viewers. As a result,
Plaintiffs suffered yet another period of non-stop phone calls, averaging 100-200 phone
calls per day. Plaintiff continues to receive threatening and harassing phone calls
practically each day. Nearly one year has passed since the initial news story broke and
Plaintiffs still receive harassing phone calls and threats to this day.
26.

Through absolutely no fault of their own, Plaintiffs have suffered and

continue to suffer damages directly resulting from Defendants failure to remove the decal
PLAINTIFFS FIRST AMENDED ORIGINAL PETITION

PAGE 8

prior to resale as promised. Plaintiffs plumbing repair work and all other sources of its
revenues have been substantially impacted and its reputation damaged beyond
rehabilitation. As a direct result of the damage to Plaintiffs reputation, Plaintiffs have lost
an excess of $1,000,000.00.
V.
CAUSES OF ACTION
A.

RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR
27.

Plaintiffs incorporate, as if set forth verbatim, the preceding paragraphs of

this Petition. At all times material to this Petition, Defendants salesman was an employee
or agent of Defendant. The acts of the employee were performed while in the employment
of Defendant and were within the course and scope of that employment or within the
authority delegated to the employee. Employee was acting in furtherance of Defendants
business, the accomplishment for which the employee was hired.
28.

Defendant is liable for the negligent acts and omissions of its employees

under the doctrine of vicarious liability, or respondeat superior.


29.

As a result of Defendants negligent acts and omissions, Plaintiffs have

suffered pecuniary harm and request compensatory and punitive damages in an amount
to be determined at trial.
B.

JOINT AND SEVERAL LIABILITY


30.

Additionally, Defendant is directly liable for the acts and omissions of its

agents, servants and employees in allowing a traded-in vehicle with clearly identifiable
marking of its previous business owner to be placed into the stream of commerce without
first removing said identifying markings, such that the truck could fall into the hands of

PLAINTIFFS FIRST AMENDED ORIGINAL PETITION

PAGE 9

criminals, terrorists or jihadists and be photographed in circumstances which could and


did bring about Plaintiffs severe injury and their incurring of consequent damages.

C.

LIABILITY FOR NEGLIGENCE, GROSS NEGLIGENCE AND COMMON


LAW TORTS
31.

As hereinafter set out in detail, Defendant is liable to Plaintiffs for its

negligence and common law torts and for all economic and/or compensatory damages
which have been suffered in the past and which, in reasonable probability will be suffered
in the future. Moreover, Defendants conduct has been so outrageous, malicious and
consciously indifferent to the overwhelmingly likely severe harm of the Plaintiffs as to
constitute gross negligence as that term is understood in Texas law, for which Plaintiffs
herein seek punitive damages, as permitted by common law and/or Texas Civil Practice
& Remedies Code 41.002.
D.

COMMON-LAW FRAUD
32.

Plaintiffs incorporate, as set forth verbatim, the preceding paragraphs of

this Petition. Defendant made a material representation regarding removal of the decals
to Plaintiff to induce him into the transaction. Defendant either knew its material
representation regarding removal of the decals was false when stated or Defendant
recklessly stated its material representations as positive assertions without knowledge of
their truth. Defendant made these representations with the intent that Plaintiff rely on
them. Plaintiff did rely on the representations to his detriment.
33.

Defendants false representations directly and proximately caused Plaintiffs

to suffer substantial past damages and in reasonable probability will cause Plaintiffs to
continue to suffer damages into the future.
PLAINTIFFS FIRST AMENDED ORIGINAL PETITION

PAGE 10

34.

Defendants actions were fraudulent, malicious, and/or grossly negligent

and subject it to exemplary damages in an amount to be determined by the jury.

E.

NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION
35.

In the alternative, or in supplement thereto, Defendant committed

negligent misrepresentation. In the course of Defendants business and in transactions


involving its own pecuniary interest, Defendants made representations to Plaintiffs that
the Defendants would remove Plaintiffs decals from Plaintiffs truck prior to resale.
Defendants had an interest in Plaintiffs selling their truck to Defendant. Plaintiffs
released their truck to Defendant under the pretense that the decals would be removed
prior to resale. Defendant negligently supplied false, misleading and deceptive
information to Plaintiffs regarding the transaction, to induce that very transaction.
Defendant wholly failed to exercise that reasonable care and competence of a vehicle
dealership in same or similar circumstances in ensuring the decals were removed prior to
resale. Plaintiffs justifiably relied on the representations made by Defendant during the
transaction, to their enormous and continuing injury and damage.
36.

Defendants misrepresentations proximately caused Plaintiffs to suffer

substantial damages in the past and will, in reasonable probability, continue to do so into
the future.
37.

Defendants actions were negligent, malicious, and/or grossly negligent and

subject it to exemplary damages in an amount to be determined by the jury.


F.

LIBEL PER SE
38.

Plaintiffs incorporate, as if set forth verbatim, the preceding paragraphs of

this Petition. Defendants failure to remove the decals from Plaintiffs truck amounted to
PLAINTIFFS FIRST AMENDED ORIGINAL PETITION

PAGE 11

Defendant implicitly accepting Mark-1 Plumbing, Inc.s decals as its own statement which
was subsequently published nationally. Defendants failure the remove the decal makes
the statement defamatory per se under the common law because, when taken as a whole
and as would have been perceived by a reasonable viewer, Defendant imputed terroristic
and/or jihadist ties and support to the Plaintiffs. As a result, Plaintiffs were injured in
their profession and occupation and, in reasonable probability, will continue to be so
injured into the future. Such tortious conduct makes the Defendant strictly liable to
Plaintiff under Texas law because it is libelous per se.
39.

Defendants statement severely and irretrievably injured Plaintiffs

reputation and exposed Plaintiffs to national public hatred, contempt, ridicule, and
financial injury and, in reasonable probability, will continue to do so into the future.
40.

Plaintiffs have suffered substantial injury as a result of Defendants

defamatory statements, including but not limited to injury to character and reputation,
mental anguish, loss of past and future income and loss of earning capacity and, in
reasonable probability, will continue to do so into the future.
G.

INVASION OF PRIVACY BY APPROPRIATION OF NAME


41.

Plaintiffs incorporate, as set forth verbatim, the preceding paragraphs of

this Petition. Defendant appropriated Plaintiffs name when it failed to remove the
traded-in trucks decals prior to resale. Plaintiff can be identified from the publication
through the plethora of news articles that include the propaganda photograph. Defendant
received advantage in cutting costs by not removing the decals prior to resale.
42.

As a result of Defendants appropriation, Plaintiff suffered injury to its

reputation, prestige, social or commercial standing, and public interest and, in reasonable
probability, will continue to do so into the future.
PLAINTIFFS FIRST AMENDED ORIGINAL PETITION

PAGE 12

43.

Plaintiff has suffered substantial injury as a result of Defendants invasion

of privacy by appropriation of Plaintiffs name, including but not limited to injury to


character and reputation, mental anguish, loss of past and future income and loss of
earning capacity.
H.

VIOLATIONS OF THE TEXAS DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES ACT,


BUSINESS & COMMERCE CODE 17.46
44.

Plaintiffs incorporate, as set forth verbatim, the preceding paragraphs of

this Petition. Defendant violated Texas Business & Commerce Code 17.46, in the
following particulars: (2) causing confusion or misunderstanding as to the source,
sponsorship,

approval,

or

certification

of

goods:

(3)

causing

confusion

or

misunderstanding as to the affiliation, connection, or association with, or certification by


another; (4) using deceptive representations or designations of geographic origin in
connection with goods; (5) representing that goods have sponsorship, approval, which
they do not have, for all of which violations, Defendant is liable per se.
45.

Regarding such violations Plaintiffs herein seek damages for past and future

mental anguish, all past and future proximately caused economic damages, taxable costs
of court and reasonable attorneys fees, together with interest as provided by law, all in
conformity with Texas Business & Commerce Code 17.50.
VI.
REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE
46.

Pursuant to Rule 194 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs request

that Defendant disclose, within the time provided by the Rules, the information or
material described in Rule 194.2.
VII.
STATEMENT OF RELIEF
PLAINTIFFS FIRST AMENDED ORIGINAL PETITION

PAGE 13

47.

Pursuant to Rule 47(c) of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs seek

monetary relief over $1,000,000.00.


48.

Plaintiffs seek damages that are within the jurisdictional limits of this Court.
VIII.
JURY DEMAND

49.

Plaintiffs demand a jury trial and tender the appropriate fee with this

Petition.
IX.
RESERVATION OF RIGHTS
50.

Plaintiffs reserve the right to amend their complaint to assert such

additional causes of action as may be revealed during discovery.


X.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiffs, MARK OBERHOLTZER
and MARK-1 PLUMBING, INC., pray that Defendant be cited to appear and answer
herein and, upon final hearing, that Plaintiffs be awarded a judgment and all relief sought
herein against Defendant as follows:
a.

all economic and compensatory damages proved by a


preponderance of evidence;

b.

punitive damages as proved by clear and convincing evidence;

c.

reasonable and necessary attorneys fees;

d.

pre-judgment and post-judgment interest as provided by law;

e.

court costs; and,

f.

all other relief, at law or in equity, to which Plaintiff is justly


entitled.

PLAINTIFFS FIRST AMENDED ORIGINAL PETITION

PAGE 14

Respectfully submitted,

LAW OFFICES OF A. CRAIG EILAND


By: ________________________
A. Craig Eiland
State Bar No. 06502380
Austin Martin
State Bar No. 24090245
Old Galveston Square
2211 The Strand, Suite 201
Galveston, Texas 77550
Telephone: (409) 763-3260
Facsimile: (409) 763-8154
ceiland@eilandlaw.com
amartin@eilandlaw.com
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS

PLAINTIFFS FIRST AMENDED ORIGINAL PETITION

PAGE 15

Exhibit A

Trade-in Vs. Selling it Myself | AutoNation | How to Trade-In a Car


http://www.autonation.com/houston/value-trade-in/trade-in-vs-selling-it-myself

Change

11 captures

Find a Store

Go

Click to Chat

6 Dec 13 - 30 May 15

FIND A VEHICLE

FINANCING

VALUE MY TRADE-IN

SPECIAL OFFERS

SERVICE

NOV DEC FEB


Sign In/Register

My Account

2012 2013 2015

Help

Close

REPAIRS

Keyword Search
Home / Value My Trade-In / Trade-In vs. Selling It Myself

Trade-In vs. Selling It Myself

Looking to sell your vehicle? Before you place that classified ad, read below to find out why it makes more sense to sell your vehicle

to us instead.

SAVE

MONEY

In many states, you only pay sales tax on the Price Difference as opposed to the full selling price when you buy without trading. For
example, if you buy a new car for $25,000 and trade-in your old car for $8,000 you will only pay $1,200 in taxes vs $1,500 if you did
not trade-in your car.

SHOULD I
LEASE
OR BUY?
Find out which makes
the most sense.

MAKE IT EASY ON

YOURSELF

Selling your car requires significant effort on your part. In order to sell your used car, you'll have to do things like running classified
ads, field phone calls and have strangers come to your house to go on test drives. Then of course, you'll have to negotiate.

AVOID CAR

REPAIR

If you sell your car, you will need to ensure it is maintained and all parts are working. This is extra worry and expense on
your part,

including fixing brakes, tires and other pricey items. If you trade-in with a dealership, they cover all of the reconditioning expenses.

PROTECT

YOURSELF

Selling your car can be very dangerous. If you do choose


to sell your vehicle yourself, be extremely careful and take the proper
precautions to insure your personal and financial saftey. When setting up appointments with potential buyers that you don't know, only
schedule
meetings when a friend or family member can be there with you.

WALK AWAY

FREELY

When you trade-in your car, you'll prevent any issues with a dissatisfied customer later on. What happens if the engine burns up or
the transmission goes out? If you sell your car, the new owner knows where you live and may contact or harass you. When you tradein your vehicle, the dealership assumes all of the responsibility and you can walk away carefree.

VALUE YOUR VEHICLE USING KELLEY BLUE BOOK

Trade-in Vs. Selling it Myself _ AutoNation _ How to Trade-In a Car December 6, 2013.htm[11/30/2015 11:58:46 AM]

LEASE VS. BUY

Trade-in Vs. Selling it Myself | AutoNation | How to Trade-In a Car

Simply follow three easy steps and you'll receive a free Kelley Blue Book Value on your current car. It's just
that easy.

Value My Trade

ACURA

CHRYSLER,DODGE,JEEP,RAM

MITSUBISHI

AutoNation Acura Gulf Freeway

AutoNation Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ram Spring

AutoNation Mitsubishi Gulf Freeway

BMW

FORD

NISSAN

BMW of Houston

AutoNation Ford Katy


AutoNation Ford Gulf Freeway

AutoNation Nissan Katy

BMW,MINI

TOYOTA,SCION

MERCEDES-BENZ

BMW of The Woodlands

AutoNation Toyota Gulf Freeway

Mercedes-Benz of Houston North


Mercedes-Benz of Greenway

CHEVROLET
AutoNation Chevrolet Highway 6
AutoNation Chevrolet Gulf Freeway

BLOGS

AutoNation Blog
Investor Relations Blog

FOLLOW US

About AutoNation
Locate a Store in Your Area
America's Largest Automotive Retailer.

2013.
AutoNation.com. All rights
reserved.

Investor Relations
Site Map
Fleet Sales

Find a Vehicle
More Search Options
Financing
Start The Finance Process
Lease vs. Buy
Vehicle Protection Videos
Get an Extended Warranty
Value My Trade-In
Trade-In Appraisal
Trade-In vs. Selling It Myself

AutoNation.com
2013. All rights reserved.

Privacy Policy |
Terms of Use |
Careers

Trade-in Vs. Selling it Myself _ AutoNation _ How to Trade-In a Car December 6, 2013.htm[11/30/2015 11:58:46 AM]

Exhibit B

CARFAX Vehicle History Report for this 2005 FORD F250 SUPER D...

1 of 7

https://www.carfax.com/showroom/#/report/1FTSX21P15EC91985

For Personal Use Only

Vehicle Information:
Minor damage reported

2005 FORD F250 SUPER DUTY


VIN: 1FTSX21P15EC91985
4 DOOR EXTENDED CAB PICKUP
6.0L V8 DIR
4 WHEEL DRIVE
Standard Equipment | Safety Options

CARFAX 1-Owner vehicle

2 Service records available


Corporate vehicle

172,446 Last reported odometer


reading

Worth $10 more than


retail book value
This CARFAX Vehicle History Report is based only on information supplied to CARFAX and available as of 12/7/15 at 5:23:42 PM (EST).
Other information about this vehicle, including problems, may not have been reported to CARFAX. Use this report as one important tool,
along with a vehicle inspection and test drive, to make a better decision about your next used car.

Price Calculator
Adjust the value of this 2005 Ford F250 Super Duty based on the information available in this report

1) Retail Book Value

2) CARFAX Price Adjustment

Enter retail book value here

3) Adjusted Retail Value


Begin by entering
the retail book value

Above retail book value

Ownership History

Owner 1

The number of owners is estimated


Year purchased

2005

Type of owner

Corporate

Estimated length of ownership


Owned in the following states/provinces

8 yrs. 3 mo.
Texas

Estimated miles driven per year

20,780/yr

Last reported odometer reading

172,446

Title History

Owner 1

CARFAX guarantees the information in this section


Salvage | Junk | Rebuilt | Fire | Flood | Hail | Lemon

Guaranteed
No Problem

Not Actual Mileage | Exceeds Mechanical Limits

Guaranteed
No Problem

12/7/2015 4:25 PM

CARFAX Vehicle History Report for this 2005 FORD F250 SUPER D...

2 of 7

https://www.carfax.com/showroom/#/report/1FTSX21P15EC91985

GUARANTEED - None of these major title problems were reported by a state Department of Motor Vehicles
(DMV). If you find that any of these title problems were reported by a DMV and not included in this report,
CARFAX will buy this vehicle back. Register | View Terms | View Certificate

Additional History

Owner 1

Not all accidents / issues are reported to CARFAX


Total Loss

No Issues
Reported

No total loss reported to CARFAX.


Structural Damage

No Issues
Reported

No structural damage reported to CARFAX.


Airbag Deployment

No Issues
Reported

No airbag deployment reported to CARFAX.


Odometer Check

No Issues
Indicated

No indication of an odometer rollback.


Accident / Damage

Minor
Damage

Accident reported on 12/12/2009.


Manufacturer Recall

No Recalls
Reported

A current list of recalls is available at Ford Motor Company.

Warranty
Expired

Basic Warranty
Original warranty estimated to have expired. Interested in an extended warranty?
Tell us what you know about this vehicle

View other FORD F250 SUPER DUTY vehicles with FREE CARFAX Reports
View vehicles with free CARFAX Reports

Detailed History
Owner 1
Purchased:
Type:
Where:
Est. miles/year:
Est. length owned:

Date:
2005
Corporate
Texas
20,780/yr
7/27/05 11/11/13
(8 yrs. 3 mo.)

Glossary

Source:

Comments:

04/05/2005

NICB

Vehicle manufactured
and shipped to original dealer

07/18/2005

McRee Ford
Dickinson, TX
281-337-1529
mcreeford.com

Pre-delivery inspection completed

Texas
Motor Vehicle Dept.
La Marque, TX
Title
#08420238546090751

Title issued or updated


First owner reported
Titled or registered as
corporate vehicle

CARFAX

This vehicle was registered in a county


declared a flood disaster area by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency ( FEMA ).

07/27/2005

09/26/2005

Mileage:

14

Of course not every car


in this area was affected
by the flood, but I'd still
get it inspected before
buying. Can't be too
careful.
07/01/2006

Texas
Registration issued or renewed
Motor Vehicle Dept.
Passed safety inspection
La Marque, TX
Title
#08420238546090751

12/7/2015 4:25 PM

CARFAX Vehicle History Report for this 2005 FORD F250 SUPER D...

3 of 7

07/01/2007

09/22/2007

https://www.carfax.com/showroom/#/report/1FTSX21P15EC91985

Texas
Registration issued or renewed
Motor Vehicle Dept.
Passed safety inspection
La Marque, TX
Title
#08420238546090751
66,530

Texas
Inspection Station
Texas City, TX

Emissions inspection performed


Passed safety inspection

07/01/2008

Texas
Registration issued or renewed
Motor Vehicle Dept.
Passed safety inspection
La Marque, TX
Title
#08420238546090751

07/01/2009

Texas
Registration issued or renewed
Motor Vehicle Dept.
Passed safety inspection
La Marque, TX
Title
#08420238546090751

12/12/2009

Damage Report

Accident reported
Minor damage reported
Minor damage is usually
cosmetic, including
dents or scratches to the
vehicle body.

07/01/2010

Texas
Registration issued or renewed
Motor Vehicle Dept.
Passed safety inspection
La Marque, TX
Title
#08420238546090751

07/01/2011

Registration issued or renewed


Texas
Passed safety inspection
Motor Vehicle Dept.
La Marque, TX
Title
#08420238546090751

07/01/2012

Texas
Registration issued or renewed
Motor Vehicle Dept.
Passed safety inspection
Texas City, TX
Title
#08420238546090751

07/01/2013

Registration issued or renewed


Texas
Passed safety inspection
Motor Vehicle Dept.
Texas City, TX
Title
#08420238546090751

10/25/2013

172,303

AutoNation Ford Gulf


Freeway
Houston, TX
713-489-2089
autonation.com

Vehicle serviced

11/11/2013

172,446

Auto Auction
Texas

Listed as a dealer vehicle


Vehicle sold at auction

11/14/2013

Dealer Inventory

Vehicle offered for sale

12/18/2013

Vehicle Exporter

Vehicle exported from


Houston, TX
and imported to
Mersin, Turkey

Print this CARFAX Report and take it to your pre-purchase inspection

Have Questions? Please visit our Help Center at www.carfax.com.

Glossary

View Full Glossary

12/7/2015 4:25 PM

CARFAX Vehicle History Report for this 2005 FORD F250 SUPER D...

4 of 7

https://www.carfax.com/showroom/#/report/1FTSX21P15EC91985

Accident / Damage Indicator


CARFAX receives information about accidents in all 50 states, the District of Columbia and Canada. Different information in a
vehicle's history can indicate an accident or damage, such as: salvage auction, fire damage, police-reported accident, crash test
vehicle, damage disclosure, collision repair facility and automotive recycler records. Not every accident or damage event is reported
and not all reported are provided to CARFAX. Details about the accident or damage event when reported to CARFAX (e.g. severity,
impact location, airbag deployment) are included on the Vehicle History Report. CARFAX recommends you obtain a vehicle
inspection from your dealer or an independent mechanic.
According to the National Safety Council, Injury Facts, 2007 edition, 7% of the 245 million registered vehicles in the
U.S. were involved in an accident in 2005. Over 75% of these were considered minor or moderate.
CARFAX depends on many sources for its accident / damage data. CARFAX can only report what is in our database
on 12/7/15 at 5:23:42 PM (EST). New data will result in a change to this report.
CARFAX Price Adjustment
Accidents, service records, number of owners and many other history factors can affect a vehicle's value. The CARFAX Price
Adjustment is a tool that analyzes millions of used car transactions to measure how the combination of all the information reported to
CARFAX affects the value of a particular vehicle. The vehicle's retail book value plus the CARFAX Price Adjustment will give you a
more accurate measure of the vehicle's value. Use this tool, along with a vehicle inspection and test drive, to make a better decision
about your next used car.
First Owner
When the first owner(s) obtains a title from a Department of Motor Vehicles as proof of ownership.
Ford or Lincoln Mercury Recall
The Ford Motor Company provides Carfax with recall information regarding safety, compliance and emissions programs announced
since 2000 for a specific vehicle. For complete information regarding programs or concerns about this vehicle, please contact a local
Ford or Lincoln Mercury Dealer.
Ownership History
CARFAX defines an owner as an individual or business that possesses and uses a vehicle. Not all title transactions represent
changes in ownership. To provide estimated number of owners, CARFAX proprietary technology analyzes all the events in a vehicle
history. Estimated ownership is available for vehicles manufactured after 1991 and titled solely in the US including Puerto Rico.
Dealers sometimes opt to take ownership of a vehicle and are required to in the following states: Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey,
Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania and South Dakota. Please consider this as you review a vehicle's estimated ownership history.
Title Issued
A state issues a title to provide a vehicle owner with proof of ownership. Each title has a unique number. Each title or registration
record on a CARFAX report does not necessarily indicate a change in ownership. In Canada, a registration and bill of sale are used
as proof of ownership.

Follow Us:

facebook.com/CARFAX

@CarfaxReports

CARFAX on Google+

CARFAX DEPENDS ON ITS SOURCES FOR THE ACCURACY AND RELIABILITY OF ITS INFORMATION. THEREFORE, NO
RESPONSIBILITY IS ASSUMED BY CARFAX OR ITS AGENTS FOR ERRORS OR OMISSIONS IN THIS REPORT. CARFAX
FURTHER EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. CARFAX
2015 CARFAX, Inc., a unit of IHS Inc. All rights reserved.
Covered by United States Patent Nos. 7,113,853; 7,778,841; 7,596,512, 8,600,823; 8,595,079; 8,606,648; 7,505,838.
12/7/15 5:23:42 PM (EST)

12/7/2015 4:25 PM

CARFAX Vehicle History Report for this 2005 FORD F250 SUPER D...

5 of 7

https://www.carfax.com/showroom/#/report/1FTSX21P15EC91985

Number of Owners:

Last owned in the following


state/province:

Texas

2005 FORD F250 SUPER DUTY


VIN: 1FTSX21P15EC91985
Body Style: 4 DOOR EXTENDED CAB
PICKUP
Engine Size: 6.0L V8 DIR
Drivetrain: 4 WHEEL DRIVE

None of these major title problems


were reported by a state Department
of Motor Vehicles:
Salvage, Junk, Rebuilt, Fire,
Flood, Hail, Lemon
Not Actual Mileage, Exceeds
Mechanical Limits

Guaranteed
No Problem
Guaranteed
No Problem

No issues reported to CARFAX on the following:


Original Manufacturer's Warranty:
Basic Warranty Expired
Please confirm remaining factory warranty and
extended warranty options with your dealer!
The original manufacturer's warranty includes:
36 months or 36,000 miles

Total Loss

No Issues
Reported

Structural Damage

No Issues
Reported

Airbag Deployment

No Issues
Reported

Odometer Rollback

No Issues
Reported

Minor damage reported on this vehicle. Please see the


full CARFAX Vehicle History Report for more details.

Information excerpted from the CARFAX Vehicle


History Report and/or Safety & Reliability Ratings;
see full reports for additional information, glossary
of terms, source attributions,disclaimers &
limitations. Go to carfax.com for complete Buyback
Guarantee terms and conditions.

2015 CARFAX, Inc., a unit of IHS Inc. All rights reserved.


Covered by United States Patent Nos. 7,113,853; 7,778,841; 7,596,512, 8,600,823; 8,595,079; 8,606,648; 7,505,838.
12/7/15 5:23:42 PM (EST)

12/7/2015 4:25 PM

CARFAX Vehicle History Report for this 2005 FORD F250 SUPER D...

6 of 7

https://www.carfax.com/showroom/#/report/1FTSX21P15EC91985

12/7/2015 4:25 PM

CARFAX Vehicle History Report for this 2005 FORD F250 SUPER D...

7 of 7

https://www.carfax.com/showroom/#/report/1FTSX21P15EC91985

12/7/2015 4:25 PM