Man wins $5,000 in i3 range claim, but must pay BMW $11,000

A Canadian court awarded Ronan Kleiman $5,000 in damages, but also ordered him to pay BMW $11,140 in legal fees

A Canadian man has finally won his long-running legal battle with BMW over i3 range claims — a dispute that had dragged on since 2017. But you could say it was a bittersweet victory, as despite winning the case, he lost thousands of dollars.

Seven years ago, Ronan Kleiman sued BMW, alleging that the 2014 i3’s marketing misrepresented its range. When he ordered the car, BMW’s Canadian website said it had a range of 200 kilometers (124 miles) in Eco Pro and Eco Pro+ driving modes.

However, after only a month of ownership, Kleiman found that the car simply could not reach that number. On one 159 km (99 mi) trip with his wife, despite ideal conditions – sunny, 25°C, and no one in the car – he only managed 158 km (98 mi).

Related: BMW owner wins $1.9 million in compensation for thumb injury caused by soft-close door

An analysis of BMW Canada’s website at the time shows that the i3’s marketing materials were quietly adjusted between November 28 and December 10, 2014. The updated figures now claimed a range of 130 km (81 mi) in Comfort mode, 160 km (99 mi) in Eco Pro mode, and 156 km (97 mi) in Eco Pro+ mode. Despite being shown archival evidence of these changes, BMW maintains that the i3 was never marketed with a 200 km (124 mi) range.

He rejected a $10,000 pretrial settlement

After years of litigation and a non-jury trial, Ontario Superior Court Associate Justice James Minns recently ruled against BMW and its Toronto dealership, awarding Kleiman $5,000 in damages. However, to Kleiman’s dismay, the June 13 order also required him to pay BMW $11,140 in legal fees and litigation costs because he rejected a pre-trial settlement offer of $10,000.

In a court filing, BMW denied making false statements about the i3 and said “the range of all electric vehicles is affected by individual driving behavior, the vehicle’s external environment, and the consumption of the vehicle’s onboard functions while driving.”

Kleiman told Automotive News that he rejected BMW’s settlement because it contained a confidentiality clause that he wanted the public to know. He had been seeking $25,000 in damages — roughly the amount he paid “out of pocket” — and said the court’s ruling didn’t really hold BMW accountable.

MORE: Mustang owner sues Ford, demands $9,500 replacement for EcoBoost engine

He said: “While I am satisfied with the judge’s finding that BMW misrepresented the vehicle, his award of damages contradicts the reasoning of that finding and fails to hold BMW accountable for its conduct.”

In the end, while Kleiman may win in court, the financial losses raise the question: Was it really worth the fight?