Cummins, Inc. v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeal Sep 10, 2003 No. E032377Published

Before: Gaut

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act applies to a manufacturer whose goods are sold in California, even if the specific consumer good at issue was purchased in another state, provided the manufacturer or its representative fails to repair the good in California.

Issues

Does Civil Code section 1793.2, subdivision (d) apply to consumer goods purchased outside of California if the manufacturer sells goods in this state?

Disposition. denied

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“we believe that the statute should be interpreted to apply in cases arising from the actions in this state of a manufacturer or its representative to repair or replace a consumer good even if that particular item was not originally purchased here.”

1 Cal.Rptr.3d 129 (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 1385 CUMMINS, INC., et al., Petitioners,

The SUPERIOR COURT of Riverside County, Respondent;

Edward D. Cox et al., Real Parties in Interest.

No. E032377. Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division Two.

June 23, 2003. Review Granted September 10, 2003. [130] Foley & Lardner, Tami S. Smason, Leila Nourani, and Shauhin Talesh, Los Angeles, for Petitioner Cummins, Inc.

Sutton & Murphy, Thomas M. Murphy, Mission Viejo, and Patrick J. Wehage, for Petitioner Winnebago Industries, Inc.

No appearance for Respondent.

Law Offices of Lawrence J. Hutchens, Lawrence J. Hutchens and Michael S. Humphries, Bellflower, for Real Parties in Interest.

OPINION

GAUT, Acting P.J.

We hold that Civil Code section 1793.2, subdivision (d),[1] a provision of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (the Act), section 1790 et seq., may be applied to a manufacturer whose goods are sold in this state even though the particular good in question was purchased in another state. We conclude, therefore, that the defendant manufacturer's motion for summary adjudication was properly denied by the trial court, and we, in turn, deny the manufacturer's petition for writ of mandate.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Real parties in interest Edward and Sandi Cox (plaintiffs) purchased a Winnebago motor home equipped with a Cummins, Inc. (Cummins) engine in the state of Idaho. In connection with the sale, plaintiffs allege that they received an express warranty. They took possession of the motor home in Idaho and drove it back to their home in Riverside. They allege that the motor home does not conform to the express warranty and that its engine was defectively manufactured, designed or assembled. Plaintiffs brought it in for warranty repairs to Cummins's and Winnebago Industries, Inc.'s (Winnebago) authorized warranty representatives in this state. In fact, they allege that they brought it in for various repairs at least eight times, but that the problems were not corrected.

Cummins, Inc. v. Superior Court

AI Brief

OPINION

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

DISCUSSION

DISPOSITION

NOTES

AI Brief