Clemons v. Nissan North America, Inc.
2013 IL App (4th) 120943
Ill. App. Ct.2013Background
- Clemons purchased a used 2007 Nissan Pathfinder with 12,800 miles in 2008 and experienced mechanical issues within a year.
- She filed suit in 2009 alleging breach of Magnuson‑Moss warranty and breach of implied warranty; the case was later moved to Sangamon County.
- Nissan admitted issuing a written limited warranty and alleged New York Auto Sales sold the vehicle “as is” with no warranty.
- Nissan moved to dismiss in 2012 under 2‑619(a)(9), arguing the dealer’s “as is” disclaimer voided Nissan’s warranty.
- The trial court granted dismissal, finding the as‑is disclaimer conformed to law and extinguished both express and implied warranties.
- The appellate court reversed, concluding a third party cannot automatically displace a manufacturer’s written warranty with an “as is” clause and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Can a third party's “as is” clause disclaim a manufacturer's written warranty? | Clemons argues Nissan’s warranty cannot be disclaimed by New York Auto. | Nissan contends the dealer’s as‑is clause extinguishes the manufacturer’s warranty. | Dispositive; as‑is clause cannot void Nissan’s written warranty. |
| Was Nissan’s 2‑619 motion timely and properly supported? | Nissan filed late after answer; failure to comply with Rule 191. | Motion timely enough and appropriately raised affirmative defense. | Motion procedurally defective; should be treated as improper under 2‑619/a and Rule 191. |
| Does the Act prohibit the disclaimer of a written warranty by a third party? | Act restricts disclaimers of written warranties. | As‑is disclaimer by dealer may extinguish warranties. | Act bars waivers of a written warranty by the trigger party; third‑party disclaimer not supported. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mitsch v. General Motors Corp., 359 Ill. App. 3d 99 (Ill. App. 2005) (discusses conspicuous disclaimer under UCC for dealer disclaimers (context of implied warranties))
- Basselen v. General Motors Corp., 341 Ill. App. 3d 278 (Ill. App. 2003) (dealer disclaimer of implied warranties; limited value for manufacturer warranty issues (overruled on other grounds))
- Tague v. Autobarn Motors, Ltd., 394 Ill. App. 3d 268 (Ill. App. 2009) (dealer’s implied warranty disclaimer analysis when a limited warranty exists)
- Rothe v. Maloney Cadillac, Inc., 119 Ill. 2d 288 (1988) (limitations on implied warranties; manufacturer disclaimers under Act)
- Sorce v. Naperville Jeep Eagle, Inc., 309 Ill. App. 3d 313 (Ill. App. 1999) (Act interplay with UCC in warranty analysis; prohibition on certain disclaimers)
- Mydlach v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 226 Ill. 2d 307 (Ill. 2007) (treatment of repair warranties and express vs. implied distinctions)