A used car dealership in Bristol is facing additional legal heat, this time via the state Attorney General’s Office, who alleges that the dealership advertised and sold vehicles that hadn’t passed state inspection and, in doing so, put customers at risk of harm and violated the Rhode Island Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

“Specifically, Defendants have engaged in the sale and advertising of potentially unsafe vehicles to unsuspecting consumers, which can lead to dire consequences for consumers who are put in a potentially dangerous situation,” the complaint reads.

It is not the first time that King Philip Motors (KPM), located at 331 Metacom Ave., has been in the headlines for legal action associated with their business practices.

In March of 2022, the Phoenix reported on a Superior Court decision that rejected KPM’s appeal of a ruling by the Rhode Island Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) Dealers’ License and Hearing Board, which found that KPM had sold the same defective vehicle twice, to two different customers.

The new suit, announced by the Attorney General’s office on Friday, referenced those findings in its own complaint, also filed in Superior Court, while contending that the dealership (operated by Neil and Tammy DeAlmeida, named in the complaint) had knowingly violated Rhode Island law multiple other times by marketing and selling vehicles prior to acquiring valid Rhode Island inspection stickers.

The complaint alleges that KPM violated two provisions of the Rhode Island Deceptive Trade Practices Act; one for marketing vehicles without valid inspection stickers, and one for selling vehicles without valid inspection stickers.

For relief, it seeks to prevent KPM from selling and marketing vehicles that haven’t passed state inspection, and would order them to pay up to $10,000 per violation found by the court, in addition to paying for the state’s legal fees and providing an unspecified amount of monetary relief to affected consumers.

Complaint paints background of deceitful sales
The complaint chronicles four separate purchases made by customers of KPM between April of 2021 and May of 2022; two of which occurred involving the same vehicle.

On April 14, 2021, a customer purchased a 2010 GMC Acadia, which had its check engine light come on “immediately” after driving it off the lot, per the complaint. When the customer’s 16-year-old child had the car shut down on them at a traffic light the next day, it began what the complaint alleges was an abrasive interaction with co-owner Neil DeAlmeida.

When the customer called to inform DeAlmeida that the car had shut down, he allegedly blamed the customer for letting the gas tank run dry, causing the fuel pump to break. On May 5, after the customer picked up the car from KPM after supposedly doing repairs on the vehicle, the check engine light came on again “within five minutes,” according to the suit.

“When Consumer A called Mr. DeAlmeida to report the issue, he began ‘screaming’ and told the consumer ‘you can take the car and shove it up your a**,’” the complaint alleges.

KPM allegedly refused to service the vehicle, so the customer took it to a different shop, which concluded its engine was failing and would need to be replaced. On May 17, they filed a complaint with the DMV’s Dealers’ License and Hearing Board. DeAlmeida allegedly took the vehicle to a Tasca dealership in Woonsocket to have it inspected, and they provided the same diagnosis; that the engine needed replaced. According to the complaint, KPM repurchased the vehicle from the customer before the DMV board rendered its decision.

But then, on Feb. 1, 2022 KPM allegedly sold the exact same vehicle, without an inspection sticker, to another customer who was not informed of any of its prior issues. When the vehicle immediately began exhibiting mechanical problems, DeAlmeida allegedly blamed it on Valvoline Instant Oil for failing to property change the oil. Valvoline subsequently supplied video evidence showing they had changed the oil, the customer filed a complaint with the DMV hearing board, and KPM ultimately was ordered to pay for the replacement of the vehicle to the customer.

In May of 2022, the complaint continues, a customer bought a 2011 Jeep Grand Cherokee from KPM, which had the check engine light come on during the drive home. The complaint states the customer tried to have KPM schedule repairs nine separate times over the next 12 weeks. When KPM finally relented and brought the car to a Jeep dealership, they allegedly refused to pay for the recommended service.

“When Consumer C confronted Mr. DeAlmeida about these issues and filed a complaint with the Dealers Board, Consumer C stated that Mr. DeAlmeida became physically threatening, said he wouldn’t ‘pay a bunch of kids at the Jeep dealer to chase ghosts,’ and that Consumer C ‘can contact a lawyer or dealer board [sic], but they can’t do a thing about it,’” according to the complaint.

A fourth incident involved the sale of a 2006 BMW in August of 2021, where a customer put down a $1,000 deposit on the vehicle, but only agreed to purchase the vehicle in total until after KPM agreed to make repairs.

“Several weeks went by without repair, and Customer D was forced to ask for a full refund,” the complaint alleges.

Attorney claims selective enforcement as defense
Carl J. Ricci, an attorney representing KPM in this case, said on Tuesday afternoon that the complaint includes an interesting choice of language, specifically within the last paragraph of their background into the case, which states, “Defendants’ conduct could deceive consumers into thinking vehicles were safe and ready for sale when they were not, and lure customers away from competing businesses which are playing by the rules.”

“Why do I think that’s interesting?” he said. “Because my research has shown that if you go to a website or if you actually physically go to any of these dealerships across the state that are ‘playing by the rules’, you’re going to find they have cars on their lots without inspection stickers.”

He said that while a car might not have an inspection sticker at the initial process of a sale, that’s not necessarily true once the sale is concluded. “They’re not really telling the whole story, because when the person drives it off the lot, it has a sticker,” he said.

Ricci said that the case brought against his client was a clear act of selective enforcement by the state, and that he had conducted an interview with an unnamed representative of the DMV’s Dealers’ Board, who backed up that assertion.

“They told me that they are more reactive than proactive,” Ricci said. “Basically, they just don’t ever go out and inspect these dealerships.”

Ricci said that the suit by the state was an attempt to shut down his client’s business, which amounted to a clear violation of the Equal Protections clause of the Constitution.

“If you have a law, you have to enforce it equally,” he said. “You can’t just choose people and let everyone else off scot-free.”

Ricci also took issue with the complaint including the allegation that DeAlmeida got physically aggressive with a customer.

“If my guy actually was physically threatening somebody, that would be a crime, which I think they would charge as a crime,” he said. “What does it tell you that they didn’t charge it as a crime?”

Ricci said he intends to fight for damages sustained by his client.

“There’s no reason we have to have these litigations,” he said. “I think they just have some type of disdain for him. It seems like they’ve decided that they just want to crush him and put him out of business. Are we focused on putting people out of business or are we focused on keeping people safe on the roads? … You’re going to put them out of business but you’re not going to enforce this anywhere else in the state?”