Owners of a used Dodge Ram pickup truck with 55,000 miles on it cannot hold the manufacturer responsible for a refund or replacement as the vehicle is not considered new, according to a recent state appellate court ruling.
The Fourth Appellate Court on April 7 upheld a lower court ruling that the "lemon law" claims of plaintiffs Everardo Rodriguez and Judith Arellano are not viable as the law (Song-Beverly Act) defines “new motor vehicle” as a new vehicle purchased primarily for personal purposes but also specifies that the term includes “a dealer-owned vehicle and a ‘demonstrator’ or other motor vehicle sold with a manufacturer’s new car warranty.”
A former spokesperson for the San Diego Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse (CALA) said that, hopefully, the court ruling in Rodriguez v FCA settles the question on "new car warranty" when a buyer purchases a used vehicle.
"They are most likely not going to be eligible for a purchase or replace benefit under the Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act,” said attorney David W. Peters, CEO and general counsel at the California Justice Alliance, APC.
The Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act was enacted in 1970 to help consumers find resolutions to defective vehicle issues and requires a manufacturer to replace or purchase a car from the owner if unable to fix the flaw.
“The Rodriguez v FCA decision is important because if you think about it, this could apply in thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of cases throughout the state,” Peters told the Southern California Record. “So, it is hugely significant in that regard. The question is only, weren't the cases already clear before this case was decided?”
Rodriguez and Arellano purchased their two-year old Dodge Ram from a used car dealership. The manufacturer’s basic warranty had expired but the limited powertrain warranty had not and after the automobile showed electrical defects, Rodriguez and Arellano sued the manufacturer, FCA US, LLC, which is also known as Chrysler, over its refund-or-replace provision.
“I'm glad it was decided at the appellate court level,” said Peters who was not involved in the case. “Hopefully, other claimants who want to take positions like this will see this decision and it will save judicial time and legal expense.”
In the ruling, the court agreed with FCA’s argument that the truck the plaintiffs purchased was not a ‘new motor vehicle.’
“There are lawyers who may market themselves as tough or aggressive and that it doesn't really matter what the law says because ‘I'm going to force you and your company to go through years of litigation or you can pay some fraction of the expense now and get out of this,’" Peters added. “I don't know that this is what happened in this case. I don't know what sort of offers were made in this case, but I can tell you, I deal with that every day.”
The case was originally filed in Riverside County Superior Court, with Judge L. Jackson Lucky, IV, presiding.
Plaintiffs were represented by Rosner, Barry & Babbitt, Hallen D. Rosner, Arlyn L. Escalante; Knight Law Group, Steve Mikhov, and Roger R. Kirnos
FCA was represented by Clark Hill, David L. Brandon, Georges A. Haddad; Horvitz & Levy, Lisa Perrochet, and Shane H. McKenzie.