that defendant failed to repair certain defects after several attempts. The trial court
concluded that plaintiff’s count for breach of express warranty under Song-Beverly
supplanted her count for breach of written warranty under Magnuson-Moss and
instructed the jury on a single count for breach of express warranty under Song-Beverly.
The jury returned a defense verdict.
Plaintiff contends her count for breach of written warranty under
Magnuson-Moss is not limited or supplanted by Song-Beverly, and the refusal of her
proposed instructions under Magnuson-Moss was prejudicial error. We conclude that
the refusal of her proposed instructions was error, but we conclude on this record that
the error was nonprejudicial. We therefore will affirm the judgment.
1 Song-Beverly is popularly known as the lemon law.
2
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
1. Factual Background
Plaintiff purchased a new BMW X5 from a BMW dealership in August 2007.2
Defendant provided a written limited warranty for a period of 48 months or 50,000
miles, whichever occurred first. The limited warranty stated that defendant “warrants
2007 U.S. specification X5 SAVs . . . against defects in materials or
workmanship . . . . ” Defendant agreed to repair or replace any such defective part
within a reasonable time provided that plaintiff took the vehicle to an authorized service
center upon the discovery of the defect.
Plaintiff experienced several problems with the car and drove it to a dealership
for warranty service on several occasions.3 The gear shift handle came loose and was
replaced in November 2008, at 19,099 miles. The gear shift knob came apart and was
replaced in August 2009. On that same visit, leather trim that was separating from the
glove compartment was replaced.
Plaintiff presented the car to a dealership in January 2010, at 30,632 miles, and
again in February 2010 complaining of loud bearing noises coming from the engine area
when the engine was started cold and the car’s failure to connect with her phone. The
phone problem was resolved, and the alternator drive belt and tensioner were replaced,
2 Plaintiff purchased the car for personal and business use in her own name and the name of her former company, Security Ticketing Corporation. 3 Although we refer to plaintiff, on several occasions it was actually plaintiff’s brother or husband who drove the car to the dealership and picked it up after servicing.
3
which seemed to eliminate the noises. Plaintiff also complained that the leather steering
wheel cover was peeling, so the cover was replaced. She returned in March 2010
complaining of similar bearing noises when accelerating at high speeds and a different
rattling noise when driving on bumpy roads. She left the car with the dealership for
a period of time and was told that the mechanics had found nothing wrong and that she
should return later for further diagnosis.
Plaintiff returned in April 2010 complaining of bearing noises and a weak
battery. The dealership replaced the power steering pump and performed other repairs
to the steering and air conditioning systems, and plaintiff’s husband later replaced the
battery. She returned in early June 2010 because a door lock was malfunctioning and
the car alarm would go off for no good reason. The dealership performed repairs. She
returned in late June 2010, at 33,183 miles, complaining of the same rattling noise that
she had experienced earlier. The dealership identified loose parts and secured them.
Plaintiff returned in July 2010 complaining that she heard noises when steering
far to either side. The dealership performed some repairs, but she returned one week
later with the same complaint. She also complained of an electrical short noise and
a burning odor emanating from the back of the car. The dealership was unable to
duplicate the reported problems and performed no repairs at that time.
Plaintiff returned in August 2010, at 34,391 miles, complaining that she
continued to hear the same bearing noises when she turned on the engine and when she
accelerated. When she picked up the car, the problem was not resolved. She decided to
park the car and not use it after that date because she was concerned about safety,
4
although she and her brother continued to drive the car occasionally. Her husband
disconnected the car battery.
Plaintiff, through her counsel, sent a letter to defendant in January 2011 revoking
her acceptance of the vehicle and demanding the return of all funds paid toward the
purchase, plus attorney fees. She submitted a claim to arbitration pursuant to
a provision in the warranty booklet. The arbitrator decided in April 2011 that defendant
had complied with the warranty in a complete and timely manner.
Plaintiff returned to the dealership in May 2011, at 37,168 miles, complaining
that the car would not start without a jump start and that the check engine light was
illuminated. The dealership determined that the battery was dead and replaced it.
Plaintiff also complained that the steering had become very heavy. She claims that she
continued to experience problems after May 2011, including bearing noises, rattling
noises, steering noises, and alarm problems, but she did not return to the dealership.
Plaintiff stopped driving the car in August 2011. She claims that she was
dissatisfied and uncomfortable with the unresolved and recurring problems.
2. Complaint
Plaintiff filed a complaint against defendant in May 2011 alleging counts for
(1) breach of written warranty under Magnuson-Moss; (2) breach of implied warranty
under Magnuson-Moss; (3) breach of express warranty under Song-Beverly; and
5
(4) breach of implied warranty of merchantability under Song-Beverly.4 She sought
damages under Commercial Code section 2714 or restitution of the purchase price in
her first count. She sought restitution of the purchase price, damages, and a civil
penalty in her third count.
3. Trial and Judgment
A jury trial commenced in July 2012. Plaintiff and her husband, a mechanic who
drove the car less frequently than plaintiff, both testified that they heard unusual noises,
but there was no evidence of any problem with the vehicle’s driving performance.
There also was no evidence of any collision, misuse, or unauthorized repairs.
Plaintiff’s automotive service expert, Jackie Winters, testified that he inspected
and test drove the vehicle in July 2011 and detected a rattling noise and another metallic
sound coming from the engine. He made a video and audio recording of the engine
running, which was played for the jury. Winters testified that the repairs performed to
address the noises reported by plaintiff were not effective repairs to correct those
problems. He testified that the noises came from inside the engine and that the
mechanics should have removed the valve cover, and perhaps other engine parts, to
check inside the engine, but according to the service records they failed to do that.5
Although he did not remove any engine parts so as to identify the source of the problem,
4 Both Orichian and Security Ticketing Corporation are named as plaintiffs in the complaint despite the fact that Orichian sold the company several years before filing the complaint. The proper plaintiff is Orichian alone. 5 Winters testified on cross-examination that he detected no abnormal steering or suspension noises and that there was nothing wrong with the steering and suspension.
6
Winters stated his opinion that the engine noises indicated that the engine was defective
and should be replaced. He testified that a new engine would cost $29,716 and that the
labor to replace the engine would cost $4,500.
Nathan Hood, who was employed by defendant as a regional technical engineer,
testified that the engine was closely monitored by sensors, including noise sensors, that
would record any faults. He testified that the absence of any recorded engine faults at
any time was a strong indication that there was no mechanical problem with the engine.
He testified that he inspected the vehicle shortly before the trial date, test drove it, ran
a diagnostic test, and reviewed the repair records. He stated his opinion that there was
no defect in materials or workmanship and that he was “a hundred percent positive, no
doubt in my mind there is absolutely nothing wrong with the engine.” He testified that
the engine sounded normal and that there were no abnormal noises of any kind.
Anthony Hawkins, the shop foreman at the BMW dealership, testified that he
personally inspected the vehicle in January 2010 and determined at that time that the
bearing noise that plaintiff reported hearing on cold starts was caused by an alternator
belt tensioner and idler pulley. Replacement parts were ordered and installed on
a subsequent visit, and Hawkins determined that the problem was resolved. He testified
that he inspected the vehicle again in March 2010 and determined that a different
bearing noise that plaintiff reported hearing when driving at a high RPM, particularly
after cold starts, was caused by a faulty power steering pump. A replacement part was
ordered and installed on a subsequent visit, and he determined that the noise went away.
He also testified on the work performed and repair records from later visits, and stated
7
that he could not detect the electrical smell that plaintiff had complained about or the
rattling or steering noises.
The trial court granted defendant’s motion for nonsuit against the implied
warranty counts.
Plaintiff proposed special instruction No. 27 on breach of written warranty under
Magnuson-Moss, stating:
“Plaintiff claims that she was harmed by BMW of North America, LLC’s
violation of its Written Warranty under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. To
establish this claim, Plaintiff must prove all of the following:
“1. That BMW of North America, LLC provided Plaintiff with a written
warranty for the vehicle;
“2. That Plaintiff delivered the vehicle to BMW of North America, LLC or its
authorized repair facilities to repair a defect in the vehicle; and
“3. That BMW of North America, LLC or its authorized repair facilities failed or
refused to repair the vehicle after a reasonable number of attempts, or after being
afforded a reasonable opportunity to do so.”
Plaintiff also proposed special instruction No. 34, based on Commercial Code
section 2714, stating that the measure of damages for such a breach of written warranty
was “The difference at the time and place of acceptance between the value of the goods
accepted and the value they would have had if they had been as warranted, unless
special circumstances show proximate damages of a different amount.”
8
The trial court refused both special instructions, stating that the CACI6
instructions on breach of express warranty under Song-Beverly “adequately cover what
we need to cover” and that Magnuson-Moss “seems to be supplanted by California
law.” The court gave CACI Nos. 3201, 3202, 3204, and 3241 relating to breach of
express warranty under Song-Beverly. Under the instructions given, plaintiff sought to
recover the purchase price paid less the value of use. The instructions required plaintiff
to prove the existence of a defect covered by the warranty that a reasonable person in
plaintiff’s situation would believe “substantially impaired [the vehicle’s] use, value or
safety.”7 The jury answered “no” to the question whether the vehicle had such a defect.8
The trial court entered a judgment on the jury verdict in August 2012 awarding plaintiff
no relief.
4. New Trial Motion and Appeal
Plaintiff moved for a new trial challenging the trial court’s refusal to separately
instruct the jury on her count for breach of written warranty under Magnuson-Moss.
6 CACI refers to the Judicial Council of California Advisory Committee on Civil Jury Instructions and identifies instructions which have been prepared by the Committee and submitted to and approved by the Judicial Council for use in all civil jury cases. 7 The trial court instructed that in deciding whether a reasonable person would believe that any defect substantially impaired the vehicle’s use, value, or safety, the jury “may consider, among other factors, the following: (a) the nature of the defect or defects; (b) the cost and length of time required for repair; (c) whether past repair attempts have been successful; (d) the degree to which the vehicle could be used while awaiting repair; and (e) the availability and cost of comparable transportation during the repairs.” 8 The jury returned a verdict after deliberating for approximately one hour. Eleven jurors answered “no” to the question, and one was undecided.
9
The court denied the motion, stating that plaintiff had failed to propose appropriate
instructions under Magnuson-Moss “if in fact such Act is applicable herein.” Plaintiff
timely appealed the judgment.
CONTENTIONS
Plaintiff contends the trial court erred by failing to separately instruct the jury on
her count for breach of written warranty under Magnuson-Moss.
DISCUSSION
1. Plaintiff’s Remedies Are Not Limited to Song-Beverly
Magnuson-Moss governs warranties for consumer products distributed in
interstate commerce. It requires disclosures in connection with written warranties,
regulates the substantive content of warranties, and establishes a federal cause of action
for breach of a written or an implied warranty (15 U.S.C. § 2310(d)), among other
provisions. Magnuson-Moss does not substitute federal law for state law of consumer
product warranties, but instead supplements state law. (Walsh v. Ford Motor Co.
(D.C. Cir. 1986) 807 F.2d 1000, 1012-1014.) “Magnuson-Moss ‘calls for the
application of state written and implied warranty law, not the creation of additional
federal law,’ except in specific instances in which it expressly prescribes a regulating
rule. [Citation.]” (Daugherty v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (2006)
144 Cal.App.4th 824, 833, quoting Walsh, supra, 807 F.2d at p. 1012.)
The Commercial Code governs warranties in the sale of goods. Section 2313,
subdivision (1)(a) states, “(a) Any affirmation of fact or promise made by the seller to
the buyer which relates to the goods and becomes part of the basis of the bargain creates
10
an express warranty that the goods shall conform to the affirmation or promise.” The
buyer must notify the seller of any nonconformity within a reasonable time of its
discovery. (Com. Code, § 2607, subd. (3)(A).) “The measure of damages for breach of
warranty is the difference at the time and place of acceptance between the value of the
goods accepted and the value they would have had if they had been as warranted, unless
special circumstances show proximate damages of a different amount.” (Id., § 2714,
subd. (2).) “In a proper case any incidental and consequential damages under
Section 2715 also may be recovered.” (Id., subd. (3).)
Song-Beverly governs warranties for consumer goods. Civil Code
section 1791.2, subdivision (a)(1) states that an “express warranty” means “A written
statement arising out of a sale to the consumer of a consumer good pursuant to which
the manufacturer, distributor, or retailer undertakes to preserve or maintain the utility or
performance of the consumer good or provide compensation if there is a failure in utility
or performance.” The buyer must deliver nonconforming goods to the manufacturer’s
service and repair facility. (Id., § 1793.2, subd. (c).) If the manufacturer or its
representative fails to service or repair a new motor vehicle to conform to an express
warranty after a reasonable number of attempts, the manufacturer must either replace
the new motor vehicle or make restitution to the buyer. (Id., subd. (d).) A defect or
nonconformity for purposes of Song-Beverly is defined as “a nonconformity which
substantially impairs the use, value, or safety of the new motor vehicle to the buyer or
11
lessee.”9 (Id., § 1793.22, subd. (e)(1).) A buyer who is damaged by the failure to
comply with an express warranty may bring an action for damages and other legal and
equitable relief. (Id., § 1794, subd. (a).)
Song-Beverly states, “The provisions of this chapter shall not affect the rights
and obligations of parties determined by reference to the Commercial Code except that,
where the provisions of the Commercial Code conflict with the rights guaranteed to
buyers of consumer goods under the provisions of this chapter, the provisions of this
remedies provided by this chapter are cumulative and shall not be construed as
restricting any remedy that is otherwise available, and, in particular, shall not be
construed to supplant the provisions of the Unfair Practices Act.” Citing these
provisions, the California Supreme Court in Murillo v. Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc.
(1998) 17 Cal.4th 985, 990, stated that Song-Beverly “makes clear its pro-consumer
remedies are in addition to those available to a consumer pursuant to the Commercial
Code (Civ. Code, § 1790.3) and the Unfair Practices Act (Civ. Code, § 1790.4).”
Magnuson-Moss defines a “written warranty” as “(A) any written affirmation of
fact or written promise made in connection with the sale of a consumer product by
a supplier to a buyer which relates to the nature of the material or workmanship and
affirms or promises that such material or workmanship is defect free or will meet
9 Neither Magnuson-Moss nor the Commercial Code requires proof that a defect substantially impairs the use, value, or safety of a vehicle in order to establish a breach of an express or written warranty, as required under Song-Beverly.
12
a specified level of performance over a specified period of time, or (B) any undertaking
in writing in connection with the sale by a supplier of a consumer product to refund,
repair, replace, or take other remedial action with respect to such product in the event
that such product fails to meet the specifications set forth in the undertaking, which
written affirmation, promise, or undertaking becomes part of the basis of the bargain
between a supplier and a buyer for purposes other than resale of such product.”
(15 U.S.C. § 2301(6).) It is undisputed that the limited warranty here constitutes
a written warranty under (B) above.
Plaintiff sought to establish a breach of the limited warranty and sought remedies
under Song-Beverly, Magnuson-Moss, and the Commercial Code. She sought to
establish the existence of a nonconformity under Song-Beverly so as to recover the
amount paid toward purchasing the vehicle less the value of her use pursuant to Civil
Code section 1793.2, subdivision (d). She also sought to establish a breach of a written
warranty under Magnuson-Moss so as to recover damages pursuant to Commercial
Code section 2714, subdivision (2) and attorney fees under the federal act (15 U.S.C.
§ 2310(d)(2)).
The trial court concluded that California law “supplanted” Magnuson-Moss and
that defendant’s liability for breach of the limited warranty must be established
exclusively under Song-Beverly. This was error. Magnuson-Moss supplements
California law of warranty and establishes a cause of action under the federal act for
breach of written warranty. Plaintiff’s count under Magnuson-Moss for breach of
written warranty was based on the Commercial Code, which provides a remedy for
13
breach of express warranty. Contrary to defendant’s argument, an express warranty as
defined in Commercial Code section 2313, subdivision (1)(a) includes a written
commitment to repair goods to conform to an affirmation or promise. (Seely v. White
Motor Co. (1965) 63 Cal.2d 9, 13; Krieger v. Nick Alexander Imports, Inc. (1991)
234 Cal.App.3d 205, 217.) Unlike her count for breach of express warranty under
Song-Beverly, plaintiff’s count for breach of written warranty under Magnuson-Moss
and the Commercial Code does not require proof of a defect that substantially impaired
the use, value, or safety of a vehicle.
2. The Trial Court’s Refusal to Instruct on Breach of Written Warranty Under Magnuson-Moss and the Commercial Code Was Error
A party is entitled to have the jury instructed on each viable legal theory
supported by substantial evidence if the party requests a proper instruction. (Soule v.
General Motors Corp. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 548, 572.) “The refusal of a proper instruction
is prejudicial error only if ‘ “it seems probable” that the error “prejudicially affected the
verdict.” [Citations.]’ [Citation.] ‘[W]hen deciding whether an error of instructional
omission was prejudicial, the court must also evaluate (1) the state of the evidence,
(2) the effect of other instructions, (3) the effect of counsel’s arguments, and (4) any
indications by the jury itself that it was misled. [Fn. omitted.]’ [Citation.]” (Faigin v.
Signature Group Holdings, Inc. (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 726, 750, quoting Soule, supra,
at pp. 580-581.) We independently review claims of instructional error viewing the
evidence in the light most favorable to the appellant. (Maureen K. v. Tuschka (2013)