California Lemon Law Lawyer Blog

The California Court of Appeal yesterday ruled that trucks used for business purposes weighing up to 10,000 lb. are covered by the California Lemon Law. This question arose in a case involving a Ford F-250 that the owner used primarily for business purposes. The Lemon Law has long covered all vehicles used primarily for personal use. The law was amended so that vehicles used primarily for business purposes were also covered, but coverage was limited to vehicles that have a "gross weight" of less than 10,000 lb.

The owner's Ford F-250 truck weighed 6,787 lb. The truck has a gross vehicle weight (GVWR) rating of 10,000 lb. The GVWR relates to safety and is the manufacturer's recommendation of the maximum the truck should weight counting the weight of the truck itself plus the weight of the passengers, equipment and cargo.

After the jury entered a verdict for the owner, the trial judge dismissed the case accepting Ford's argument that truck was not covered by the Lemon Law since the GVWR was 10,000 lb. Ford argued that the reference to the "gross weight" of the vehicle in the statute meant the vehicle's gross vehicle weight rating. The appellate court reversed the trial court ruling and reinstated the jury verdict.

The Court of Appeal held that the F-250 was covered by the Lemon Law because the actual weight of the truck itself is what counts and that the GVWR was a different matter. The decision is a binding precedent on all of California's trial courts and as such will will put to rest Ford's crusade to exempt its trucks used for business purposes from the scope of the California Lemon Law. (Joyce v Ford Motor Company).

San Francisco's Channel 5 ran a nice story on the case.

In a victory for consumers, the California Court of Appeal yesterday published an opinion holding that the owner of a lemon car need not own the car in order to claim lemon law benefits The plaintiff owner of the car had repeatedly tried to get an electrical problem fixed. Ultimately, the owner left the car at Kia of Temecula and stopped making payments on her car loan. The finance company repossessed the car. After the repossession, the car was towed to Kia of Glendale where a technician finally figured out the problem was in the alternator had been overcharging and causing damage to electrical components.

The parties apparently reached a settlement subject to the Court of Appeal determining if the owner of a lemon car must own the car to claim lemon law remedies. (This issue has been remained undecided until now even though the lemon law has been in existence since 1971). The appellate court ruled for consumers on the issue presented.

In its opinion, the Court emphasizes that the lemon law is strongly pro-consumer and should be interpreted to protect consumers. The Court said that ruling that consumers had to own the car at the time they claim lemon law remedies would "have a chilling effect on the availability of the Act's remedies" and that ruling Kia's way might mean a consumer unfairly would have to continue paying on a defective car that the manufacturer could not repair in order to obtain a remedy under the law.

The case is Martinez v Kia Motors of America. The opinion includes a fine overview of the law. The text of the key parts of the opinion is at the jump.

Continue reading "A Consumer Need Not Own the Car to Claim Lemon Law Remedies" »

Consumer Reports current newsletter reports that extended warranties on electronic products such as televisions, audio equipment and cameras are a bad buy. One tip off that the service contracts are overpriced is that retailers typically pocket 50% of the purchase price. Buying these products means betting on three unevents happening under the right circumstances: 1) the product breaks during the first three or four years of ownership (unlikely because most products don't break down that time period), 2) that the product will break after the manufacturer's warranty has expired, which is unlikely, and 3) the cost of repair will exceed the cost of the warranty. Consumer Reports surveys show that repair costs are not much higher than warranty costs.

That the California Lemon Law covers cars and trucks has become common knowledge. What is less known,however, is that the law covers boats, trailers, motorhomes, computers, and motorcycles. In fact, the law covers just about all items bought primarily for personal,family or household use. Kemnitzer, Anderson, Barron & Ogilvie LLP has represented buyers of of defective personal computers and personal watercraft (“Jet Skis”). A KABO attorney represented the owner of a defective Steinway piano. Business vehicles that weigh less than 10,000 lb. are also covered by the California Lemon Law as long as the owner has no more than five registered vehicles (thus excluding fleet owners).