CHEE LI VS. BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLCÂ (L-3014-13, MORRIS COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-0453-15T3

Background

Chee and Feng Li sued BMW claiming a 2011 vehicle had excessive oil usage and BMW refused warranty repairs; Chee signed the purchase and finance documents and title was in her name.
Plaintiffs asserted five claims including violations of the MMWA, breach of express and implied warranties, breach of covenant of good faith, and Consumer Fraud Act violations.
Discovery disputes prompted a May 28, 2014 protective order limiting plaintiffs’ written discovery; plaintiffs served 318 interrogatories and 53 document demands.
BMW moved to dismiss Feng’s claims for lack of standing; an evidentiary hearing found Chee was the named purchaser and titleholder, and an alleged affidavit assigning Chee’s warranty rights to Feng conflicted with anti‑assignment contract language.
The trial court dismissed Feng’s claims (Aug. 17, 2015) for lack of standing; Chee’s claims were separately dismissed for failure to appear at mandatory arbitration and were not appealed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Feng has standing under the MMWA (15 U.S.C. §2301)	Feng argued he is a consumer under all three MMWA categories: buyer, transferee, or a person entitled to enforce the warranty	BMW argued Feng was not the buyer, not a transferee of title or warranty rights, and had no enforceable assignment or third‑party beneficiary status	Court held Feng lacked standing under all three categories and dismissed his MMWA claim
Whether an alleged "Affidavit of Sale" assigned Chee’s warranty/contract rights to Feng	Feng relied on the affidavit to show assignment/transfer of rights	BMW relied on the retail installment contract anti‑assignment clause and documentary proof Chee was sole purchaser	Court found the affidavit did not create an enforceable assignment and anti‑assignment contract language controlled
Whether Feng can be a third‑party beneficiary of the retail installment contract (to enforce warranties)	Feng argued he was the intended beneficiary and therefore could enforce warranty rights	BMW argued there was no evidence the contracting parties intended to confer enforceable rights on Feng	Court held Feng was not an intended third‑party beneficiary; hence no contractual standing
Whether lack of privity permits Feng to sue for economic loss or only personal injury	Feng argued his use and payments made him entitled to warranty claims	BMW argued horizontal non‑privity only allows personal injury claims under New Jersey law (UCC §2‑318) and not economic loss	Court held horizontal non‑privity would not support economic loss claims; Feng cannot pursue express/implied warranty economic damages

Key Cases Cited

Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Investors Ins. Co. of Am., 65 N.J. 474 (1974) (trial court factual findings after an evidentiary hearing are binding if supported by substantial credible evidence)
Ryan v. Am. Honda Motor Corp., 186 N.J. 431 (2006) (MMWA consumer definitions and relationship to state warranty claims)
Spring Motors Distribs. v. Ford Motor Co., 98 N.J. 555 (1985) (limits of economic loss recovery and privity principles for product warranty claims)
Voelker v. Porsche Cars N. Am., 353 F.3d 516 (7th Cir. 2003) (treatment of lessees/transferees under MMWA category analysis)
Broadway Maint. Corp. v. Rutgers, 90 N.J. 253 (1982) (third‑party beneficiary doctrine: focus on contracting parties' intent)
Somerset Orthopedic Assoc., P.A. v. Horizon Blue Cross & Blue Shield of N.J., 345 N.J. Super. 410 (App. Div. 2001) (anti‑assignment clauses are generally enforceable)