This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Consumer Law
Song-Beverly Act
Breach of Express Warranty

Jon Lambert, William Lambert v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc.

Published: Aug. 30, 2024 | Result Date: Feb. 8, 2024 |

Case number: SCV-269133 Verdict –  Defense

Judge

Bradford J. DeMeo

Court

Sonoma County Superior Court


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Christopher J. Campbell
(Strategic Legal Practices, APC )


Defendant

Kriston J. Guillot
(Beatty & Myers LLP)


Experts

Plaintiff

Randall Bounds
(automotive )

Defendant

Erik Nielsen
(Toyota Motor Sales field technical specialist)

Facts

On June 11, 2017, plaintiffs William and Jon Lambert purchased a new 2017 Toyota 4Runner from Freeman Toyota. They filed this lawsuit seeking damages from defendant Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. for violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, commonly known as the Lemon Law, on the grounds that defendant failed to properly repair his vehicle under the vehicle's warranty. Plaintiffs contended the vehicle suffered from water intrusion from the rear hatch seal. They sought damages including restitution, incidental and consequential damages, a civil penalty, pre-judgement interest, attorney's fees and costs.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiffs contended that defendant failed to conform the subject vehicle to the terms of the express warranty after a reasonable number of repair opportunities. They further claimed that the vehicle suffered from defects substantially impairing the use, value, and safety. They claimed that the vehicle was not fit for ordinary use, and that the vehicle had not been repaired within 30 days. Finally, plaintiffs claimed that the defendant willfully refused to comply with its obligations to repurchase the vehicle, entitling them to a civil penalty.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendant claimed there was no defect in materials or workmanship with the subject vehicle, including no defect that substantially impaired its use, value, or safety. Defendant maintained that it had complied with its obligations under the Lemon Law and that plaintiffs were not entitled to any relief.

Damages

Plaintiff demanded repurchase of vehicle and civil penalty totaling $70,000, and attorney's fees by motion. Defendant offered $20,000 and attorney's fees by motion.

Result

Verdict for defendant on all causes of action.

Deliberation

one hour, 45 minutes

Poll

12-0

Length

15 days


#143542

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390