Media & Insights
November 7, 2024
Rodriguez v. FCA (2024)
Plaintiffs purchased a used truck with over 55,000 miles on it. Plaintiffs had electrical problems with the truck and sued the manufacturer, claiming they were entitled to a repurchase of the vehicle under the “lemon law” provisions of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. The manufacturer moved for summary judgment, arguing that the lemon law’s repurchase-or-replace remedy is limited to “new motor vehicles,” which does not include plaintiffs’ used truck. The trial judge agreed. Plaintiffs appealed, arguing that “new motor vehicles” are defined to include previously owned vehicles with some balance remaining on the manufacturer’s express warranty.
The Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeal that the definition of “new motor vehicle” does not cover used vehicles. The Supreme Court explained that the language of the Song-Beverly Act as a whole and the legislative history all confirm that a previously-sold used vehicle does not fall within the definition of “new motor vehicle.”
Horvitz & Levy LLP represented the defendant on appeal.
Plaintiffs purchased a used truck with over 55,000 miles on it. Plaintiffs had electrical problems with the truck and sued the manufacturer, claiming they were entitled to a repurchase of the vehicle under the “lemon law” provisions of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. The manufacturer moved for summary judgment, arguing that the lemon law’s repurchase-or-replace remedy is limited to “new motor vehicles,” which does not include plaintiffs’ used truck. The trial judge agreed. Plaintiffs appealed, arguing that “new motor vehicles” are defined to include previously owned vehicles with some balance remaining on the manufacturer’s express warranty.
The Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeal that the definition of “new motor vehicle” does not cover used vehicles. The Supreme Court explained that the language of the Song-Beverly Act as a whole and the legislative history all confirm that a previously-sold used vehicle does not fall within the definition of “new motor vehicle.”
Horvitz & Levy LLP represented the defendant on appeal.
