Lemon Laws

In an unpublished decision involving a purportedly defective yacht, the California Court of Appeal held in Andersen v. Pacific Asian Enterprises, Inc., 2012 WL 130473 (Cal.App. 4 Dist. 2012) that the Song-Beverly Act does not afford loss-of-use damages in the absence of actual expenses expended to cover.  The facts were as follows.  In April 2003, Andersen entered into a contract… Read More

In Orue v. Ford Motor Service Co., 2011 WL 6176190 (9th Cir. 2011), the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that a service contract complied with Song-Beverly because it conferred benefits additional to the Manufacturer’s warranty:    The district court correctly concluded that the service contract sold by Ford did not violate the Song–Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, Cal… Read More

In Joyce v. Ford Motor Co., --- Cal.Rptr.3d ----, 2011 WL 3891871 (2011), the California Court of Appeal found that a truck purchased for commercial purposes (notwithstanding identification on the RISC to the contrary) was protected by the express warranty provisions of the Song-Beverly Act because the vehicle weighed less than 10,000 pounds – even though the vehicle was ‘rated’… Read More

In Gertz v. Toyota Motor Corp., 2011 WL 3681647 (C.D.Cal. 2011), Judge Guttierrez granted an automobile manufacturer’s motion to dismiss an express warranty claim on the basis that what Plaintiff’s really were alleging was a product defect, which was mutually exclusive from the warranty claim.  The claim arose from allegations that Prius’ fuel tanks contract in cold weather such that… Read More

As part of the Federal Trade Commission’s systematic review of all FTC rules and guides, the agency is seeking public comment on its Rules and guidance regarding product warranties under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. The agency is seeking comment on the FTC’s Interpretations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, the FTC’s Guides for the Advertising of Warranties and Guarantees, and three… Read More

In General Motors LLC v. Bowie, --- So.3d ----, 2011 WL 1485306 (Fla.App. 2011) , the Florida Court of Appeal was called to determine whether a consumer, in pre-litigation settlement discussions regarding a lemon-law vehicle, could hold out for her attorneys’ fees against a manufacturer’s offer of full rescission prior to litigation.The Court of Appeal found no, explaining: Florida's “Lemon… Read More

In Russo v. BMW of North America, LLC, et al., Defendants-Appellants, --- N.Y.S.2d ----, 2011 WL 1120087 (N.Y.A.D. 1 Dept. 2011), the New York Appellate Division rejected the “no car, no claim” rule in lemon law cases, explaining:   Defendants also failed to demonstrate that by returning the vehicle as required by the lease agreement, plaintiff spoliated evidence. The Court of… Read More

In Mauk v. Pioneer Ford Mercury, --- S.E.2d ----, 2011 WL 1107031 (Ga.App. 2011), the Court of Appeal held that a customer who purchased a lemon vehicle      Sheila Mauk bought a new Mustang in May 2007, and within three weeks brought it back to the dealership, Pioneer Ford Mercury, with complaints about the transmission. Over the next nine… Read More

In Cox v. Kia Motors Am., Inc., 2011 WL 924020 (Ohio App. 2011), the Ohio Court of Appeals followed Ninth Circuit precedent to hold that the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act applies to limited, as well as full, warranties.    Whether the MMWA applies to limited warranties is an issue of first impression in Ohio. But many other state and federal courts… Read More

In Martinez v. Kia Motors America, Inc., --- Cal.Rptr.3d ----, 2011 WL 711878 (2011), the California Court of Appeal rejected a vehicle manufacturer’s claim that the consumer must be in possession of the vehicle (i.e. not have had it repossessed) in order to prevail in a lemon law case.  The Court of Appeal explained:    Plaintiff and appellant Juanita Martinez… Read More

In DeSiqueira v. Toyota Motor Ins. Services, Inc., 2011 WL 362400 (2011), the California Court of Appeal held in an unpublished opinion that a manufacturer’s extended service contract did not violate the Song-Beverly Act merely because the Plaintiff “has a dismal opinion of the importance or value of the Contract's additional benefits”.  The Court of Appeal explained:   The Warranty… Read More

In Karapetian v. Kia Motors America, Inc., --- F.Supp.2d ----, 2010 WL 4678691 (C.D.Cal. 2010), Judge Carney exercised his discretion to reduce Plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees in a lemon law case.  In Karapetian, the Plaintiff’s counsel rejected the defendant’s Rule 68 offer and did not do better in the ultimate settlement of the Action, even though Plaintiff prevailed in the case. … Read More

In Lukather v. General Motors, L.L.C. 2010 WL 377035 (2010), a vehicle manufacturer appealed following a bench trial and court award of damages, a civil penalty, prejudgment interest, and attorney fees and costs under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (Act), Civil Code sections 1790 et seq., known as California's “lemon law.” The Court of Appeal rejected the manufacturer’s contentions that… Read More

In D.L. Edmonson Selective Service Inc. v. LCW Automotive Corp. 2010 WL 309018 (C.D.Cal. 2010), the Court found the Song-Beverly Act not applicable to a vehicle delivered out-of-state, explaining: As a threshold issue, LCW contends that the Song-Beverly Act does not apply to this case because the limousine was delivered to and accepted by plaintiff in Texas, not California.FN29 “[F]or… Read More

In Mexia v. Rinker Boat Co., Inc.2009 WL 1651442 (2009), the Fourth District Court of Appeal held that the Song-Beverly Act adds to the UCC's implied warranty of merchantability by giving the warranty a duration equal to any express warranty on the goods, but at least 60 days and no more than a year after purchase.  (Civ. Code § 1791.1(c)) … Read More

In Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. --- Cal.Rptr.3d ----, 2009 WL 1578400 (2009), the Court of Appeal for the Fourth District held that the Song-Beverly Act did not preclude an award of pre-judgment interest.  The Court of Appeal explained:   Civil Code section 3287 is the statutory basis for pre-judgment interest.  Subdivision (a) of section 3287 states, in part: “Every… Read More

In Galicia v. Country Coach, Inc. 2009 WL 1144224 (9th Cir. 2009), an unpublished opinion, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that deliver of an RV outside the state of California prevented application of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act to the transaction.   The district court did not err in granting McMahon's summary judgment. The Galicias' Song-Beverly… Read More

In Ward v. Fleetwood Motor Homes (2009) 2009 WL 311407, the California Court of Appeal in an unpublished decision denied relief to a motor home buyer under the Song Beverly Act.  The case involved engine trouble which California purchasers of an RV had with their RV while en route to Mt. Rushmore.  Caterpillar, the manufacturer of the engine, paid $2,206… Read More

In Lyman v. Mercedes-Benz, USA, LLC, 2009 WL 143695 (2009), the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth District held in an unpublished decision that the Song-Beverly Act does not protect a dealer who has issued special dealer plates rather than registered the vehicle under the Vehicle Code.  The Court of Appeal explained: The narrow issue in this appeal is… Read More

In Aquair Ventures, LLC v. Gulf Stream Coach, Inc., 2009 WL 150963 (N.D.Cal. 2009), Judge Conti ruled on whether a corporate purchaser of a motor home who took delivery outside the state of Calfornia could obtain protection by the Song-Beverly Act.  As to the latter, Judge Conti said yes; as to the former, Judge Conti said no.  As to a… Read More