‘Lemon’ Law Court Ruling Sweet News for Motorists
If you think you’re driving a defective vehicle but can’t get the dealer or manufacturer to quickly repair or replace it under the state’s auto “lemon” law, here’s some good news.
A recent California appellate court ruling may give motorists even more protection by addressing a loophole that, according to safety advocates, allowed auto makers to skirt the law.
State lawmakers stiffened the lemon law last year, reducing from four to two the number of chances a manufacturer has to fix a life-threatening defect in a vehicle. After a second unsuccessful repair attempt, the vehicle must officially be branded a lemon, requiring the manufacturer to replace it or give the owner a refund. (Auto makers still have four attempts to fix non-life-threatening defects.)
However, some auto makers and dealerships have stonewalled owners’ efforts to get relief under the law, consumer advocates claim.
“Some auto dealers and manufacturers have been telling motorists that regardless of how many times they brought a defective vehicle in to be fixed, none of those visits counted unless a specific repair was done,” said Rosemary Shahan, president of Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety.
As a result, she said, many drivers have been unable to get satisfaction.
That’s exactly what led Marcelino Oregel to sue American Isuzu Motors Inc. in San Diego County Superior Court after it declined to repurchase his leased 1998 Rodeo sport-utility vehicle. In his suit, he claimed he made repeated, unsuccessful attempts to have the manufacturer and his dealership repair a chronic oil leak.
A jury found that American Isuzu had willfully violated its obligations under the lemon law to replace or buy back Oregel’s Rodeo. The company appealed, claiming there was insubstantial evidence to support the verdict.
But the state’s 4th District Court of Appeal upheld the jury verdict. In its published opinion, the court said American Isuzu’s policy regarding lemon-law repairs was “unreasonable” and fell short of “a good-faith effort to honor its statutory obligations to repurchase defective cars.”
Lauding the court ruling as a victory for drivers, Shahan contends that Isuzu’s treatment of Oregel “undermines the purpose of the law.”
“It greatly frustrates buyers, who often end up trading in their lemons at a substantial loss . . . and endangers public safety when the defective vehicles are resold and end up back on the road,” said Shahan, whose group was a sponsor of the revised lemon law, which took effect Jan. 1.
American Isuzu expressed disappointment over the latest court ruling and is considering whether to appeal, said Paul Hirose, the company’s marketing counsel.
*
Some in the auto industry suggest that allegations of lemon-law problems are exaggerated.
Maureen O’Haren, lobbyist for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, defended auto makers, saying they want safe cars for their customers and “try hard to treat customers well.”
“But we can’t control the dealers,” she said. “We issue franchises to these folks, but in the end we can’t control what they do.”
Owners of defective vehicles should contact the manufacturers directly if dealerships are unresponsive, O’Haren said.
But a spokesman for the California Motor Car Dealers Assn. said the auto makers are calling the shots on lemon-law issues.
“It’s the manufacturers that authorize warranty repairs and are required under law to replace the vehicle or buy it back,” said Peter Welch, the association’s director of government and legal affairs.
“Needless to say, manufacturers don’t like to give free replacement cars,” he said.
Dealerships end up being caught between irate customers and the auto makers, he said, noting: “Quite frankly, we would prefer the customer get a new car. Dealers want to keep their customers happy. The last thing we want to do is alienate customers.”
Welch said manufacturers’ responses to lemon-law requests can vary widely.
“Some of them get a couple letters from a customer, and the next thing you know [the driver is] in a brand-new car. Some say, ‘We ain’t buying you anything.’ It’s like pulling teeth.”
In upholding the jury verdict against American Isuzu, the appellate court clarified that even if a mechanic can’t or won’t fix a defect when it is brought to the dealer’s or manufacturer’s attention, the request still counts as a repair attempt under the lemon law.
The appellate court declared that there was “evidence that Isuzu adopted internal policies that erected hidden obstacles to the ability of an unwary consumer to obtain redress.”
Isuzu argued that Oregel should have had to provide expert testimony not only to prove that his SUV leaked oil but also to show the cause of the leak. But based on testimony by an Isuzu customer relations manager, the appellate court said that “a customer could go to the dealer an unlimited number of times complaining of a problem, but if the dealer could not find the source and therefore made no replacements or adjustments, there would be no repair attempts triggering Isuzu’s repurchase obligations.”
Consumer advocate Shahan said the ruling, by potentially closing a loophole in the law, addresses “one of the thorniest issues consumers face when attempting to have their defective vehicles repaired or bought back.”
Under the state’s lemon law, drivers have 18 months or 18,000 miles to make a claim. The law also is triggered if a vehicle has been out of service for repairs for 30 days during that period.
*
Jeanne Wright cannot answer mail personally but responds in this column to automotive questions of general interest. Write to Your Wheels, Business Section, Los Angeles Times, 202 W. 1st St., Los Angeles, CA 90012. E-mail: jeanrite@aol.com.
