193 Cal. App. 4th 187
Cal. Ct. App.2011Background
- Plaintiff Juanita Martinez purchased a new 2002 Kia Sedona with a 60-month/60,000-mile express warranty from Kia Motors America, Inc.
- Within the warranty period she reported a burning smell; dealerships allegedly did not repair the defect, allegedly denying warranty coverage.
- The car later developed serious electrical and battery issues; after being towed between Kia of Riverside and Kia of Temecula, it was left at Temecula and eventually repossessed in February 2006.
- Kia subsequently repaired some issues at Kia of Glendale, paid by Kia under the warranty, while Martinez faced storage charges and loss of use due to repossession.
- Martinez sued under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act for breach of express warranty and implied warranty of merchantability, seeking replacement or restitution.
- The trial court granted summary judgment on the theory that remedies under the Act require possession of the vehicle, which Martinez no longer had; the appellate court reversed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether possession is required to obtain Act remedies | Martinez argues no possession is needed to access replacement or restitution remedies. | Kia argues possession is needed to obtain Act remedies. | No possession requirement; remedies available without ownership in this Act. |
| Construction of the Act's remedial provisions | Remedies should be granted to conform to express warranties even after repossession. | Remedies conditioned on retaining the vehicle or related possession requirements. | Plain statutory language supports replacement or restitution without ongoing possession. |
| Relation to common law and the UCC | Common law rescission principles/UCC limits do not constrain Act remedies. | Rescission and related doctrines may constrain, given common-law notions. | Common law/UCC principles do not limit or redefine the Act's remedies; Jiagbogu controls. |
Key Cases Cited
- Robertson v. Fleetwood Travel Trailers of California, Inc., 144 Cal.App.4th 785 (Cal. App. 2006) (remedies—replacement or restitution after failed repairs; possession not required)
- Jiagbogu v. Mercedes-Benz USA, 118 Cal.App.4th 1235 (Cal. App. 2004) (Act provides broader protections beyond rescission and UCC; no rescission requirement)
- Krotin v. Porsche Cars North America, Inc., 38 Cal.App.4th 294 (Cal. App. 1995) (remedies under Act—failure to cure triggers replacement or restitution)
- Mitchell v. Blue Bird Body Co., 80 Cal.App.4th 32 (Cal. App. 2000) (restitution concept discussed in context of status quo restoration)
- Alder v. Drudis, 30 Cal.2d 372 (Cal. 1947) (old equity principles cited and distinguished from Act remedies)
- Jensen v. BMW of North America, Inc., 35 Cal.App.4th 112 (Cal. App. 1995) (California lemon-law framework and consumer protections context)
- Murillo v. Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc., 17 Cal.4th 985 (Cal. 1998) (remedial nature of Song-Beverly Act and pro-consumer intent)