Cummins, Inc. v. Riverside Super. Ct. 6/23/03 CA4/2

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » California » Court of Appeal » 2003 » Cummins, Inc. v. Riverside Super. Ct. 6/23/03 CA4/2

State: California

Court: 1st District Court of Appeal 1st District Court of Appeal

Docket No: E032377

Case Date: 06/23/2003

Preview:Filed 6/23/03

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO CUMMINS, INC., et al., Petitioners, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, Respondent; EDWARD D. COX et al., Real Parties in Interest. E032377 (Super.Ct.No. RIC 361915) OPINION

ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS IN MANDATE. Dallas Holmes, Judge. Petition denied. Foley & Lardner, Tami S. Smason, Leila Nourani, and Shauhin Talesh, for Petitioner Cummins, Inc. Sutton & Murphy, Thomas M. Murphy and Patrick J. Wehage, for Petitioner Winnebago Industries, Inc.

1

No appearance for Respondent. Law Offices of Lawrence J. Hutchens, Lawrence J. Hutchens and Michael S. Humphries, for Real Parties in Interest. We hold that Civil Code section 1793.2, subdivision (d),1 a provision of the SongBeverly 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.

1

All further statutory references are to the Civil Code unless otherwise indicated.

2

Plaintiffs sued Winnebago and Cummins for breach of warranty. They brought two causes of action against Cummins for violation of the Act, also known as the California lemon law statute, and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (the Federal warranty statute), and one cause of action for negligent repairs against its repair facility, Cummins Cal Pacific, Inc. In the first cause of action brought under the Act, plaintiffs specifically allege that defendants violated the provisions of section 1793.2, subdivisions (d)(1) and (2) by failing to repair or replace the motor home within a reasonable time. Cummins, joined by Winnebago,2 moved for summary adjudication of the first cause of action on the ground that the Act does not apply because the motor home was purchased outside of California. They contend that the Act was enacted to protect consumers who purchase consumer goods in this state from manufacturers who provide express warranties, and that it applies only if the goods were sold in California. Specifically, they noted that section 1793.2, subdivision (a) applies to "[e]very manufacturer of consumer goods sold in this state." Plaintiffs countered that the statute does not require that the specific good be sold in this state. They urged the trial court to look to the intent of the Legislature, which is to eliminate consumer frustrations caused by defective products and to ease difficulties in resolving disputes over warranties. The trial court denied summary adjudication. It noted that the introductory wording regarding "goods sold in this state" is contained only in subdivision (a) but not

3

in subdivision (d) of section 1793.2. "[Section] 1793.2[,] subdivision (d) imposes a duty to make goods conform to their warranties, but this subdivision unlike (a) is not expressly limited to those goods sold here. The [L]egislature could have included the phrase, quote, goods sold in California, end of quote, in that section[,] but left it at quote, goods, end of quote. So all things considered, plaintiff's interpretation makes the most sense." DISCUSSION Cummins contends that the trial court engaged in a tortured interpretation of the statute in holding that the Act applies to out-of-state sales. It notes that the language limiting its application to sales in California is contained throughout the Act, and nowhere is there any indication that out-of-state sales are within its scope. According to Cummins, the court's interpretation was clear error based on the plain language, legislative history, and common sense construction of the statute. Plaintiffs also contend that section 1793.2, subdivision (d) is clear on its face and free from ambiguity. Their interpretation of the plain meaning of this provision is diametrically opposed to Cummins's. According to plaintiffs, the subdivision does not require the motor home to be sold in California. Rather, they contend it is separate and coequal to section 1793.2, subdivision (a). Had plaintiffs alleged a violation of section 1793.2, subdivision (a), they assert they would have been obligated to prove that the vehicle was sold in this state, but section 1793.2, subdivision (d) requires manufacturers to replace or repurchase defective consumer goods and new motor vehicles if their
[footnote continued from previous page] 2 Winnebago has also filed

a joinder in this petition for writ of mandate. 4

representatives in this state are unable to service or repair them to conform to the applicable express warranty after a reasonable number of attempts. Plaintiffs conclude that there is nothing in the legislative history that indicates an intent to exclude goods purchased outside the state which have been unsuccessfully repaired here by the manufacturer or its authorized representative. We begin our analysis by setting out the pertinent provisions of the statute at issue. Subdivision (a) of section 1793.2 states that "[e]very manufacturer of consumer goods sold in this state and for which the manufacturer has made an express warranty shall: [

Download Cummins, Inc. v. Riverside Super. Ct. 6/23/03 CA4/2.pdf