56 Cal.App.5th 334
Cal. Ct. App.2020Background
- Santana purchased a new 2012 Dodge Durango (Nov. 2011) and experienced recurring no-starts and other electrical/systems problems during ownership.
- Expert testimony linked many failures to the Totally Integrated Power Module (TIPM); Continental-manufactured TIPMs used a silicone conformal coating that could degas and cause fuel-pump relay failure.
- Chrysler internal emails and Continental test results from 2013 identified the silicone-coating relay failure; Chrysler implemented a bridge/external-relay repair and issued recalls in Dec. 2014 and July 2015 that used the bypass.
- Santana requested repurchase in Jan. 2016 after repeated repairs and traded the vehicle in June 2016; he sued in Oct. 2016 for breach of express and implied warranties (Song‑Beverly), fraudulent concealment, and negligent repair.
- A jury awarded warranty damages, found a willful Song‑Beverly violation (civil penalty), and awarded fraud damages, noneconomic damages, and $1 million punitive; the trial court awarded attorney fees using a lodestar and 2.0 multiplier.
- On appeal the court affirmed the Song‑Beverly willfulness finding and the fee award, but reversed the fraud verdict and vacated the fraud compensatory, noneconomic, and punitive damages for lack of substantial evidence of pre‑purchase concealment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fraudulent concealment (knowledge pre‑sale) | Santana: Chrysler knew of TIPM defect pre‑Nov.2011 and concealed it, inducing purchase | Chrysler: no evidence it knew of this defect before Santana bought the vehicle | Reversed: insufficient substantial evidence Chrysler knew of defect before sale, so concealment not proven |
| Willful violation of Song‑Beverly Act (repurchase duty / civil penalty) | Santana: Chrysler performed an inadequate bridge repair during warranty and thus willfully failed to repurchase/repair | Chrysler: duty to repurchase arose only when buyer requested after warranty expired; later settlement offers cured any failure | Affirmed: evidence showed Chrysler knew of and chose inadequate repair during warranty period; duty arose then and civil penalty allowed |
| Attorney fees apportionment & multiplier | Santana: claims arise from one set of facts so fees need not be apportioned; multiplier justified by contingency, complexity, results | Chrysler: fees should be apportioned between fee and non‑fee claims; multiplier double counts contingency and improperly relies on results | Affirmed: claims intertwined so no apportionment; court did not double‑count contingency and permissibly considered results among other factors |
Key Cases Cited
- Oregel v. American Isuzu Motors, Inc., 90 Cal.App.4th 1094 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001) (willfulness under Song‑Beverly is factual jury question)
- Kiluk v. Mercedes‑Benz USA, LLC, 43 Cal.App.5th 334 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019) (overview of Song‑Beverly consumer remedies)
- Krotin v. Porsche Cars N. Am., 38 Cal.App.4th 294 (Cal. Ct. App. 1995) (manufacturer’s duty to repurchase arises when repair duty not met within reasonable time)
- Bell v. Vista Unified School Dist., 82 Cal.App.4th 672 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000) (apportionment not required when fees incurred on common issues)
- Ketchum v. Moses, 24 Cal.4th 1122 (Cal. 2001) (lodestar and permissible multipliers; avoid double counting contingency)
- Graham v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 34 Cal.4th 553 (Cal. 2004) (results obtained relevant to fee enhancement when tied to superior performance)
- Robertson v. Fleetwood Travel Trailers of California, Inc., 144 Cal.App.4th 785 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) (reversal where trial court double‑counted contingency in fee award)
- PLCM Group, Inc. v. Drexler, 22 Cal.4th 1084 (Cal. 2000) (purpose of fee award is to approximate market value of services)