A Tennessee Mercedes-Benz dealership and one of its technicians have been ordered to pay $20,270 after a customer’s car was taken to two local bars while it was supposed to be undergoing repairs. The dealership argued that the trip was an authorized extended test drive, but the judge rejected that explanation.
WREG Investigators reports that Kimberly Porter sued Mercedes-Benz of Collierville and technician Derrick Nguyen following the January incident. Porter discovered that her Mercedes-Benz C300 had left the dealership after receiving movement alerts from a third-party tracking device installed in the car.
The vehicle reportedly stopped at J. Alexander’s before later appearing at a TJ Mulligan’s location. Porter drove to the second venue in the dealership’s loaner vehicle and found her Mercedes parked outside.
Judge Lynn Cobb described the defendants’ conduct as “extreme and outrageous” and included $15,000 in punitive damages in the award. Nguyen is also facing a separate criminal theft charge, which remains unresolved.
GPS Alerts Revealed the Car Had Left
Porter had brought her C300 to the dealership after it developed problems she believed were caused by contaminated fuel. The car had reportedly remained at the dealership for an extended period before her tracker sent an alert on the evening of January 16.
She initially considered whether the notification could have been an error, but subsequent location updates showed the car moving away from the dealership. The tracker first placed it at J. Alexander’s and later at TJ Mulligan’s after midnight.
Porter used a spare key to enter the vehicle once she arrived and contacted police because she believed the car had been stolen. Officers reportedly found identification belonging to Nguyen inside the Mercedes and later located him inside the bar.
Technician Faced a Theft Charge
Police arrested Nguyen and charged him with theft of property following the incident. Court records cited in local reporting also alleged that he appeared intoxicated when officers took him into custody.
Nguyen reportedly told police that he had permission to use the car. Porter said the dealership’s service manager denied that claim at the time, creating an immediate dispute over whether the trip had been authorized.
The criminal charge is separate from the civil case and has not yet resulted in a final determination of guilt. Nguyen is scheduled to return to criminal court in Collierville following the civil judgment.
Dealership Argued It Was a Test Drive
During the civil trial, attorneys representing Nguyen and Mercedes-Benz of Collierville argued that he had permission to take the C300 on an extended test drive. The defense maintained that the vehicle’s use fell within the scope of evaluating it after service.
Judge Cobb was not persuaded by that explanation. In court records obtained by WREG, the judge wrote that customers reasonably expect vehicles left for service to remain near the dealership or repair facility.
The ruling also emphasized that owners do not anticipate their vehicles being used for personal purposes. A trip involving two bars late at night did not fit the court’s view of what a reasonable customer would understand as a legitimate test drive.
Court Awards More Than $20,000
Porter received a total award of $20,270, including $15,000 in punitive damages. Shelby County General Sessions Court limits damages to $25,000, placing the judgment relatively close to the court’s maximum.
Punitive damages are generally intended to punish particularly serious conduct and discourage similar behavior. Cobb’s description of the case as extreme and outrageous indicates that the court viewed the incident as extending well beyond a simple misunderstanding over dealership procedure.
Porter’s attorney, Kevin Snider, said the judgment sent a message that consumers should be protected when dealership employees misuse customer vehicles. He also criticized attempts to justify the conduct after it was discovered.
Questions Remain After the Ruling
WREG contacted the attorney representing the dealership and Nguyen for comment and asked whether they intended to appeal. No response had been reported at the time of publication.
The case highlights the level of trust customers place in service departments when handing over vehicles, keys, and personal property. Test drives can be a legitimate part of diagnosing or confirming a repair, but customers reasonably expect them to remain connected to the work being performed.
A late-night trip to multiple bars crossed that boundary in the judge’s view. While the criminal case is still pending, the civil ruling leaves little doubt about how the court assessed the dealership’s extended-test-drive defense.
Do you think the judge was too harsh, or was the $20,270 award justified? Where should dealerships draw the line on an extended test drive, and what kind of distance, duration, or stops should be considered acceptable when a customer’s car is being serviced? Let us know in the comments.