Category: Lemon Law

By: Sepehr Daghighian, Esq.

The seasoned trial attorneys at CCA regularly utilize outside expert witnesses in lemon law litigation in order to help understand, analyze, and bolster their client’s cases.  Lemon law cases oftentimes involve complicated technical issues and disputed facts. Thus, automotive technical experts provide critical insights, which allow our attorneys to deliver superlative results for our clients.

The use of lemon law expert witnesses is allowed both under California Evidence Code Section 720, and Federal Rule of Evidence 702.  In the context of the California Evidence Code, in order to qualify as an expert witness, the expert must demonstrate that “he has special knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education sufficient to qualify him as an expert on the subject to which his testimony relates.”  In the Federal context, similarly, Rule 702 requires expert witnesses to demonstrate that their “scientific, technical or otherwise specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact understand the evidence, or to determine a fact in issue.” The automotive expert witnesses used by CCA’s attorneys assist by conducting vehicle inspections, performing scientific analyses, reviewing and opining on repair orders and repair procedures, and providing highly skilled technical testimony to juries to help deliver trial victories for our clients.  

The automotive experts we use are some of the most qualified in the industry.  Oftentimes, lemon law litigants are faced with expert testimony by manufacturers in house personnel, which needs to be countermanded at trial.  Therefore, CCA’s attorneys utilize master automotive technicians with decades of experience, who are often ASE certified, and who are exceptionally well-versed in all aspects of automotive technology.  Lemon law litigation involves complicated defects, new technologies, and lengthy repair histories. Technical experts help analyze these issues by conducting vehicle inspections, reviewing records, and researching the defects experienced by our clients in light of widespread problems with similar vehicles.  CCA’s automotive experts assist our attorneys in understanding these matters and, when necessary, help to explain them to the jury.  

Also, lemon law cases often turn on whether or not authorized dealerships properly performed repair procedures.  Technical experts help to analyze the repair orders and the dealership procedures to determine whether or not the dealership’s work was up to snuff.  Lemon law automotive experts furthermore conduct scientific analysis in order to help understand the issues at hand. For instance, our experts often analyze fluid samples from engines and transmissions in order to understand the vehicle system’s malfunctions.  These chemical fluid analyses serve as a “blood test” to understand scientifically the underlying cause of vehicle defects. Such tests can prove conclusively that a vehicle system is defective, in spite of a manufacturers claims that there is nothing wrong with our client’s vehicle.  

Effective automotive experts can mean the difference between winning and losing at trial in lemon law cases.  CCA’s attorneys have litigated numerous cases wherein juries relied heavily on testimony by technical experts.  For instance, in litigation concerning FCA’s flawed Totally Integrated Power Module (“TIPM”), our attorneys have utilized experts to analyze and explain the TIPM system’s failures in light of the history of defects evidenced by FCA’s internal documents.  Furthermore, technical experts have been critical in undermining defense theories regarding TIPM malfunctions and explaining why FCA’s repair protocols were insufficient to properly address the TIPM’s many issues. 

Lemon law litigation oftentimes involves subtle issues such as intermittent problems, hesitations or jerking during acceleration, or violent transmission shifts.  In such cases, lemon law expert witness testimony is critical in providing third party neutral analysis of the vehicle’s performance.  

Automotive experts are also used to overcome the smoke and mirrors presented by the defendants in lemon law trials.  For example, in a recent “unintended acceleration” case tried by CCA’s attorneys in Riverside, California, the defendant insisted (through an in-house engineer) that there was no defect with the vehicle and that there was no unintended acceleration.  Our client’s expert witness, however, drew on his decades of experience and an over 1,000-mile test of the subject vehicle to determine conclusively that the vehicle possessed a defect and that the defendant’s theory of the case was not tenable. Ultimately, the jury returned a verdict in our client’s favor.  In these and countless other cases, the automotive experts utilized in lemon law matters serve as a critical piece of the puzzle in achieving a successful outcome for our clients.  

Lemon law litigation oftentimes involves technical, sophisticated, and nuanced issues. CCA’s attorneys rely on the industry’s foremost experts to provide a technical and scientific foundation for our client’s lemon law claims.  If you have a lemon law case that requires a high degree of technical expertise, we invite you to contact our firm for a free consultation: (833) LEMON-FIRM.

CCA services consumers throughout the State of California and persons that purchased their vehicles in California, only

By Sepehr Daghighian

In sunny California, we don’t spend too much time worrying about the rain.  However, come wintertime, vehicle owners often encounter an unpleasant, smelly, inconvenient, and even dangerous phenomenon: vehicle water leaks.  CCA’s clients often enjoy months of trouble-free driving only to encounter vehicle problems arising from water intrusion during the first rains of the season.  For instance, rain and moisture can enter the vehicle’s cabin through the roof panel or sunroom, enter the doors and tailgate through leaks in the weather-stripping, and soak the floorboards and carpeting by entering the vehicle’s cab through various openings.  

Fortunately, most sources of vehicle water leaks are covered by vehicles’ “basic” or “bumper-to-bumper” warranties.  If your vehicle’s manufacturer is unable to cure these leaks after a reasonable number of attempts, your vehicle may qualify as for repurchase or replacement as a lemon under California law.  

Vehicle warranty leaks are not only stinky and inconvenient, but they can also pose a safety risk.  For instance, in April of 2019, Acura announced that it was recalling 323,000 of its 2014-2019 MDX sports utility vehicles because water intrusions in the rear liftgate could lead to damage to electrical components, including the taillights and brake lights.   

Owners of 2012 – 2018 Jeep Patriot and Compass SUVs have also complained extensively of severe roof leaks into the interior of their vehicles.  For instance, Jeep Owners have complained that their “roof leaks when there is a heavy rainstorm. Car now reeks like spoiled milk. Water leaks out of the glove compartment sometimes too.”  Oftentimes, in spite of taking their vehicles to the dealership for warranty service, Jeep is unable to correct the leaks. Like Acura’s water leaks, these roof leaks can also lead to electrical shorts because the water oftentimes intrudes into the vehicle’s dome lights.  

In October of 2017, Ford Motor Company issued a recall on 73,400 of its 2015-2017 Transit Vans, which it found could be harmed by water intrusion.  According to Ford, symptoms of a problem include turn signals that flash too quickly, a loss of the instrument cluster display, losing the heater and air conditioning controls and losing the radios, screens and all multimedia functions.  Ominously, Ford warned that the water intrusion could also lead to vehicle fires. Later in May of 2018, Ford expanded this recall to include additional Transit-150, Transit-250, Transit-350, and Transit-350 HD vehicles.  

The expert attorneys at CCA have handled numerous lemon law matters on behalf of clients that experienced annoying, inconvenient, and dangerous water intrusions in their vehicles.  If your vehicle’s manufacturer has been unable to repair leaks in your vehicle covered by warranty, we invite you to give us a call today for a free consultation: (833) LEMON-FIRM.  

CCA services consumers throughout the State of California and persons that purchased their vehicles in California, only

By Brian T. Murray

Aside from the new car smell, one of the best advantages of purchasing a new vehicle is knowing that your new car will be covered by the manufacturer’s warranty.  Yet, consumers don’t often appreciate that their vehicles are covered by multiple, sometimes overlapping warranties.  

For the majority of automobile manufacturers, the new-vehicle warranty includes a basic bumper-to-bumper warranty and a powertrain warranty.  The basic or bumper-to-bumper warranty usually covers the cost of repairs for defects in materials or workmanship to all components for a given time and mileage.  Currently, Volkswagen offers one of the industry’s best basic warranties that lasts for 6-years or 72,000-miles, whichever occurs first.

Most automobile manufacturers also offer a powertrain warranty that applies to major mechanical components like the engine, transmission and axles.  Several manufacturers including Kia, Hyundai, and Mitsubishi offer a 10-year or 100,000-mile powertrain warranty.  However, make sure to read the fine print because in some cases, the 10-year or 100,000-mile powertrain warranty is only available to the original owner of the vehicle.  Subsequent owners are stuck with much less coverage.  

In addition to the manufacturer’s warranty, vehicle emissions systems are covered by warranties that statute.  Among other parts, the Federal Emissions Warranty can cover emissions-related component repairs for vehicles up to 8 years old or up to 80,000 miles, whichever comes first. The Federal Emissions Warranty covers the repair/replacement of many emission-related components. 

Components typically covered under the 8/80 Federal Emission Warranty include emission parts that must perform for an extended period of time without performance issues. These components include a vehicle’s Catalytic Converter, Transmission Control Module, and Powertrain Control Module and/or Engine Control Unit (PCM or ECU).

The State of California has its own emissions component coverage for 7-years or 70,000-miles. The California Emissions Warranty covers many more smog parts than the Federal Emissions Warranty. There are also certain year, make and model vehicles that may have emission parts covered under the California Warranty that go above and beyond the normal parts coverage for 8/80.

Historically, new vehicle warranties were not always so comprehensive.  At the turn of the 20th century, some manufacturers including Oldsmobile offered no warranty at all.  By the 1920s, it was not uncommon to see a 90-day warranty sold with new vehicles.  

Despite the introduction of longer warranties in the 1960s, automobile quality had deteriorated so badly that the U.S. Federal Trade Commission launched an investigation into the growing litany of consumer complaints. In 1975, Congress enacted the Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act in response to merchants’ widespread misuse of express warranties and disclaimers. The purpose of the act was to make warranties on consumer products more readily understood and enforceable.  

The Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act is still in effect today to protect consumers from deceptive warranty practices in connection with all consumer goods, including automobiles.  Although manufacturers of consumer goods are not required to provide written warranties, if a written warranty is provided, it must comply with the Magnuson-Moss Act.

In addition to the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, California Consumers enjoy the benefit of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.  The Song-Beverly Act is one of the strongest consumer protection acts in the nation and provides broad protections to vehicle owners when their vehicle manufacturers fail to live up to the promises made in their warranties.  

If your vehicle has had excessive warranty issues or spent too many days in the shop, please give the lemon law experts at CCA at call today for a free consultation: (833) LEMON-FIRM. 

By Michael H. Rosenstein, Esq.

California’s lemon law, the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Protection Act, was an outgrowth of investigations and public hearings by the California Senate Business and Professions Committee in November 1969. The committee concluded that aside from automobile repairs, the single largest category of consumer complaints was warranty problems. In addition to warranties being confusing and misleading, consumers complained that manufacturers and retailers rarely accepted responsibility for making repairs under their warranties. Unsurprisingly, the largest number of warranty complaints concerned automobile dealers and manufacturers.

The committee inquiry convinced California State Assembly Senator Alfred Song that consumers “need legal protection” (As the leading proponent and coauthor of the Song-Beverly Act (Civil Code §§ 1790 et seq.), Senator Song specifically indicated that the purpose of creating a consumer warranty protection law was to establish “legal weapons” for consumers.  If manufacturers wanted the advertising and marketing benefits of issuing warranties at the time of sale, manufacturers needed to eliminate the practice of making warranties “little more than sales gimmicks.”  

The proposed consumer protection act set forth rights, responsibilities, and the legal relationship of buyers and sellers of consumer goods in California. Manufacturers or retailers issuing express warranties for consumer goods sold in California that were unable to service or repair consumer goods to conform to the applicable express warranties were required to either replace the goods, reimburse buyers, or face potential lawsuits. The Act initially proposed that if the buyer established that a retailer or manufacturer’s failure to comply was willful, any subsequent court judgment could include a civil penalty up to three times the actual damages plus attorneys’ fees. The final bill codified into law, however, reduced recovery for civil penalties from three times actual damages to two. It also indicated that manufacturers and retailers would only be liable under the Act if they had been given a “reasonable number of attempts” to fix defects (Civil Code § 1793.2). 

Senator Song’s achievement was a remarkable one because the Song-Beverly Act was the first consumer warranty law–state or federal–passed in the country. At its inception, the Song-Beverly Act’s purpose was to arm consumers with powerful legal weapons attainable through the court system. However, all involved realized that ambiguities in the law could create unforeseen challenges. Even Senator Song noted that “like most new pieces of legislation, [the Act had] its share of loopholes and ambiguities” In particular, the Act did not define what constituted a reasonable number of attempts, willful violation, or a civil penalty. A

Since Senator’s Song’s remarkable achievement, the Song-Beverly Act has been expanded and explained through new legislation and decades of court decisions.  Today, the Song-Beverly Act is found in California Civil Codes 1790 – 1795.8.  

Fortunately for California consumers, the Song-Beverly Act remains one of the most robust consumer protection statutes in the nation.  The lawyers at CCA have the great privilege of practicing Song-Beverly litigation every day. To learn more about how our State’s lemon law can be put to work for you, please call us: (833) LEMON-FIRM.

While we’ve all had mechanical and electronic devices with defects that have driven us crazy, defects that affect our cars are often the most intrusive. It is never good news to hear that your car will have to be “in the shop” again for an extended period. When you receive such news about a new, newly purchased or leased car (still under warranty), you will probably begin wondering if your car is a lemon. If you suspect it is, the first thing you should do is get in touch with a lemon law attorney with a reputation for knowledge and integrity. The last thing you need when you are already feeling taken advantage of is a lemon law attorney you can’t trust.

California Lemon Laws

Though state lemon laws vary a bit state to state, in California, typically for a vehicle to be considered a lemon:

1. Your car must have a “substantial defect or defects;”
2. The defect or defects must be covered by the original manufacturer’s warranty;
3. That defect must affect the use, value or safety of the vehicle
4. Your car must have gone through a reasonable number of repair attempts without success

Failures of the major vehicle systems – brakes, engine, transmissions, vehicle computers, etc. – typically qualify as substantial impairments.  If, on the other hand, your upholstery has a worn spot or your glove box doesn’t open unless you bang it—these defects typically do not qualify as “substantial.” 

Stuck with a Lemon? The Right Lemon Law Attorney Will Help You Make Lemonade

Don’t waste any more time feeling frustrated and helpless. With a capable lemon law attorney at your side, you will have the best chance of receiving the refund or replacement vehicle you deserve.

As frustrating as it is to have an ongoing problem with your new or newly purchased or leased automobile, it is doubly frustrating to find that—in spite of all your inconvenience and displeasure—you’ve been told your car doesn’t qualify as a “lemon.” Just when you thought that the law was finally on your side in a consumer dispute, you have been told that all your time and bother doesn’t count and you will have to fend for yourself. When you’re feeling down and out, before you begin sulking about the way large companies always have the advantage and individuals are always the underdog—call a talented lemon law attorney. 

Remember To Take It From Whom It Comes

In order to get professional advice, you have to go to a professional. The fact that your best friend, your father-in-law, your old mechanic, or even your car dealer or manufacturer has told you that you don’t have grounds to pursue a lemon law case, don’t take their word for it. 

Instead, consult with someone who earns a living by winning lemon law cases in California. If you think about it, it’s easy to see why your loved ones, who are not likely to be extremely well-informed in the field of lemon law might be mistaken. And the car dealer and manufacturer have every reason to convince you to back away from a lemon law claim or a lawsuit. They’re looking out for their bottom line.

The Truth of the Matter

Once you consult with a lemon law attorney, you will uncover the facts that lead to, or away from, a diagnosis of a “lemon.” More than that, you will come to understand that a high-quality lawyer in the field knows precisely which tactics will work to persuade the manufacturer to negotiate rather than fight a battle before a jury that is likely to be inclined to side with you, the consumer. 

Real Reasons Your Car May Not Be Considered a Lemon

There are times, of course, when your vehicle, though it’s given you a great deal of trouble, will not be legally categorized as a lemon. These disqualifying criteria are: 

1. The defect is considered insubstantial, not tied to the vehicle’s use, value, or safety (e.g. the radio knob periodically comes off; the glove box has to be banged shut)
2. The defect occurred due to your own, or a passenger’s negligence (e.g. your car stalled because you neglected to have the oil checked and it was very low)
3. The defect is the result of an accident, theft, or vandalism (e.g. your car is pulling to the right after you’ve had a fender bender)
4. The defect is the result of an unauthorized repair of the vehicle 

Why a Lemon Law Attorney Gives You an Edge

Some of the criteria for determining whether your car is a lemon are open to interpretation. Suppose, for example, that well before your car stalled in traffic, creating a dangerous situation, you had complained of a leak onto your garage floor, but the dealer’s service team checked the car twice and said it was fine. Or suppose that weeks before your minor accident you had your car checked because you felt it was pulling to the right and, though the dealership mechanics assured you that the steering was fine, that defect was responsible for your fender bender? 

A competent lemon law attorney will fight aggressively to support your version of events. Your lemon lawyer will collect and examine records from the dealer verifying your claims and argue your case before an arbitrator or, if necessary, in a court of law. Take advantage of the experience, technical knowledge, access to experts, well-practiced strategies and legal acumen of a lemon law attorney. You won’t pay any attorneys’ fees until you win replacement or repurchase of your vehicle.

By Michael H. Rosenstein, Esq.

The rulings in Krotin v. Porsche Cars North America, Inc. (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 294, 45 Cal.Rptr.2d 10 (“Krotin”) and Lukather v. General Motors, LLC, (2010) 181 Cal. App. 4th 1041, 1051, 104 Cal.Rptr.3d 853 (“Lukather”) are twin pillars of consumer protection under California’s Song-Beverly Act.  While the decisions concern two very different vehicles – the former a 1987 Porsche 944 and the latter a 2005 Cadillac – they both reach the same important conclusion: that the Song-Beverly Act places the “affirmative duty” to repurchase defective vehicles squarely on the manufacturers’ shoulders.  

Mikhail and Maya Krotin leased their 1987 Porsche 944 in October of 1987 and, right at the outset, began experiencing problems driving the car in the mornings after a cold start. (Krotin at 298). During the first four months of ownership, the Krotins brought their Porsche into the shop four times for repair of the problem. (Id.) The Krotins proceeded to take the vehicle to 3 different Porsche dealerships for repair of the cold-start problem and a wide array of other issues; to no avail. (Id.) Meanwhile, they called Porsche Cars North America in May of 1988 to request a “buyback” of their beleaguered 944. (Id.) Porsche refused. In January of 1991, the Krotins wrote Porsche headquarters, indicating their vehicle was a lemon and requesting a repurchase. (Id. at 299). Porsche refused, again.  A month later, the Krotins wrote Porsche Financial Services advising that they were revoking acceptance of the vehicle and advising that they would no longer make payments on the now parked 944. (Id.) Eventually, Porsche repossessed the car and, then, added insult to injury by suing the Krotins.

Paul Lukather’s purchase of a 2005 Cadillac from Cadillac of Whitter in April of 2005 followed a similarly disastrous fact pattern.  Right out of the gate, Mr. Lukather’s Cadillac exhibited an intermittent but recurring malfunction in the electronic stability control system. (Lukather at 1043). Mr. Lukather brought the vehicle to the dealership numerous times for the ESC system issue, braking issues, and other issues.  While GM admitted at trial that the vehicle qualified as a lemon, it contended that Mr. Lukather did not do enough to trigger its obligation to repurchase or replace the vehicle.  

The Courts in both Krotin and Lukather reached the same important conclusion: under California’s Song-Beverly Act, the consumer does not need to take any steps other than to provide the manufacturer with the opportunity to repair the vehicle. (Krotin at 303; Lukather 1050).  Rather, the Song-Beverly Act imposes on manufacturers, “an affirmative duty to replace a vehicle or make restitution to the buyer if the manufacturer is unable to repair the new vehicle after a reasonable number of repair attempts, and the buyer need not reject or revoke acceptance of the vehicle at any time. The buyer need only provide the manufacturer with a reasonable opportunity to fix the vehicle.” (Lukather at 1050, citing Krotin at 303). Although not expressly stated, this essential conclusion is embodied in the CACI jury instruction for Failure to Repair After a Reasonable Number of Repair Attempts (CACI 3201), which imposes no obligation on consumers other than to take in their vehicles for service. (See: CACI 3201).  

In Krotin, the automobile manufacturers as amici curiae argued, not so fast! How could we possibly know if our vehicles are lemons after sell them?  We’re not “clairvoyant!”  The court of appeal decisively smacked this argument down, stating: “An automobile manufacturer need not read minds to determine which vehicles are defective; it need only read its dealers’ service records… Computerized recordkeeping at dealership service departments could easily facilitate this task, even without any direct contact from the consumer to the manufacturer or any request for replacement or reimbursement to the dealership. It is thus apparent that a manufacturer need not be ‘clairvoyant’; it need only demonstrate more initiative in honoring warranties.”  (Krotin at 303).  

In conclusion, Krotin and Lukather both require that manufacturers repurchase defective and unfixable vehicles – even without the consumer asking.  Although 15-years apart, both courts interpreted the Song-Beverly Act the same way: to require that the vehicle manufacturers monitor their computerized warranty records and voluntarily repurchase lemons.  

Theoretically, this legal obligation should put lemon law lawyers like us out of business, right?  Wrong!  In reality, in this writer’s experience, in spite of Krotin and Lukather, no manufacturer actually follows the law by monitoring its computerized warranty records to voluntarily repurchase defective vehicles.  While these important decisions provide substantial ammunition to California consumers, in reality, manufacturers simply pretend like they don’t exist.  

If you have a vehicle that you believe is a lemon, don’t hold your breath waiting for the manufacturer to do the right thing, call the experts at CCA today for expert assistance: (833) LEMON-FIRM. 

Disclaimer

This blog/website is made available by CCA for educational purposes. It provides general information and a general understanding of the law but does not provide specific legal advice. By using this site, commenting on posts, or sending inquiries through the site or contact email, you confirm that there is no attorney-client relationship between you and CCA. The blog/website should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction.  Also, this blog/website is informational in nature and is not a substitute for legal research. Due to the dynamic nature of legal doctrines, what might be accurate one day may be inaccurate the next. As such, this blog/website should not be relied upon without specifically consulting with a legal professional about its contents.