X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
The California Supreme Court seemed unwilling on Wednesday to extend the state’s generous lemon law protections to faulty vehicles bought in other states. “Under your interpretation, a resident of Nevada who buys in Nevada could have the benefits of the lemon law of California,” Justice Marvin Baxter told Bellflower, Calif., attorney Michael Humphries during oral arguments. “What would ever motivate a California legislator to impose that type of burden on California businesses to benefit an out-of-state resident who purchases out of state?” Chief Justice Ronald George and Justice Joyce Kennard added to Humphries’ grief by saying that the lemon law makes it abundantly clear that its protections apply only to vehicles “sold in this state.” “If we agree with you,” Kennard stated, “this becomes surplusage.” The case began when Edward and Sandi Cox bought a Winnebago motor home equipped with a Cummins Inc. engine in Idaho, then drove it home to Riverside, Calif. After experiencing irreparable problems with the vehicle, they sued both companies for allegedly violating a provision of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act that requires proper maintenance or replacement of a malfunctioning vehicle. Riverside County Superior Court Judge Dallas Holmes denied Winnebago and Cummins’ summary judgment motion, but Riverside’s 4th District Court of Appeal reversed in 2003, saying that the act can apply to goods sold outside California as long as successful repair attempts by the manufacturer are made inside the state. The Supreme Court justices seemed ready to remand Wednesday, with a couple of them pointing out that even the legislative analyst and the author of the legislation, former state Sen. Alfred Song, had written letters saying the lemon law wouldn’t have any impact on vehicles bought out of state. They also noted prior rulings holding a presumption against legislation that would have extra-territorial effects. Cummins was represented by Tami Smason, of Los Angeles’ Foley & Lardner, while Winnebago was defended by Thomas Murphy, a partner in Mission Viejo, Calif.’s Sutton & Murphy. A ruling in Cummins v. Superior Court (Cox), S117726, is expected within 90 days.

This content has been archived. It is available exclusively through our partner LexisNexis®.

To view this content, please continue to Lexis Advance®.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber? Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via Lexis Advance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.