226 Cal. App. 4th 1322
Cal. Ct. App.2014Background
- Tamar Orichian bought a new 2007 BMW X5 covered by a 48‑month/50,000‑mile written limited warranty promising repair or replacement of defective parts.
- Orichian repeatedly reported noises (engine/bearing/rattling), electrical/alarm issues, and other problems; dealership performed multiple repairs between 2008–2011 and an arbitrator found BMW complied with the warranty.
- In May 2011 Orichian sued asserting: (1) breach of written warranty (Magnuson‑Moss), (2) breach of implied warranty (Magnuson‑Moss), (3) breach of express warranty (Song‑Beverly), and (4) breach of implied warranty of merchantability (Song‑Beverly).
- At trial the court granted nonsuit on implied warranty counts and refused Orichian’s proposed Magnuson‑Moss/Commercial Code instructions, submitting only the Song‑Beverly express‑warranty claim to the jury; the jury returned a defense verdict.
- Orichian appealed the court’s refusal to separately instruct on breach of written warranty under Magnuson‑Moss/Commercial Code; the Court of Appeal found instructing on Magnuson‑Moss was required but the omission was nonprejudicial and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Magnuson‑Moss/Commercial Code warranty claim is supplanted by Song‑Beverly | Orichian: Magnuson‑Moss claim survives; provides separate federal cause and Commercial Code remedies not limited by Song‑Beverly’s substantial‑impairment requirement | BMW: California Song‑Beverly remedies supplant or subsume Magnuson‑Moss theory here | Held: Error to treat Magnuson‑Moss as supplanted; Magnuson‑Moss supplements state law and a separate written‑warranty theory under the Commercial Code was available |
| Whether trial court erred in refusing Orichian’s proposed Magnuson‑Moss/Commercial Code instructions | Orichian: Proposed instructions tracked elements of breach of written warranty and damages under Commercial Code and should have been given | BMW: CACI Song‑Beverly instructions adequately covered issues; Magnuson‑Moss unnecessary | Held: Refusal to give proper instructions was erroneous because plaintiff was entitled to jury instruction on each viable theory supported by evidence |
| Whether the instructional error was prejudicial (requiring reversal) | Orichian: Jury might have awarded damages under a Magnuson‑Moss theory (not requiring substantial‑impairment) | BMW: Jury properly rejected plaintiff’s defect theory; outcome would not differ | Held: Error was not prejudicial on this record because plaintiff’s theory at trial sought recovery for a defective engine that would have required showing the kind of defect Song‑Beverly requires; jury’s rejection of substantial impairment effectively rejects plaintiff’s actual theory |
| Proper measure of damages under Magnuson‑Moss/Commercial Code vs Song‑Beverly | Orichian: Commercial Code measure (diminution in value) and attorney fees under Magnuson‑Moss should be available | BMW: Song‑Beverly remedies were the relevant measure here | Held: Commercial Code/Magnuson‑Moss remedies are available in principle, but plaintiff did not show the instructional omission affected verdict; judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Walsh v. Ford Motor Co., 807 F.2d 1000 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (Magnuson‑Moss supplements state warranty law; applies state law to warranty claims)
- Daugherty v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., 144 Cal.App.4th 824 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) (Magnuson‑Moss calls for application of state warranty law except where federal act prescribes)
- Murillo v. Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc., 17 Cal.4th 985 (Cal. 1998) (Song‑Beverly remedies are cumulative and do not displace Commercial Code remedies)
- Seely v. White Motor Co., 63 Cal.2d 9 (Cal. 1965) (express warranty under Commercial Code includes seller’s written commitment to repair)
- Soule v. General Motors Corp., 8 Cal.4th 548 (Cal. 1994) (party entitled to jury instructions on each viable legal theory supported by substantial evidence)
- Cardinal Health 301, Inc. v. Tyco Electronics Corp., 169 Cal.App.4th 116 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (elements and damages for breach of warranty under Commercial Code)