After two years of briefing, the Supreme Court of California released its opinion in Rodriguez v. FCA, US LLC. And in this Halloween-Day opinion, there were no tricks—just confirmation of what automakers and other warrantors have been arguing for years: “new” does not mean “used.”
Under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, buyers of new motor vehicles are entitled to specific remedies if a manufacturer is unable to repair a new motor vehicle after a reasonable number of repair attempts. The statute provides that the remedy is available only as to a “new motor vehicle.” And it defines a “new motor vehicle” as one “bought or used primarily for personal purposes” as well as dealer-owned vehicles and demonstrators “sold with a manufacturer’s new car warranty.” Cal. Civ. Code § 1793.22(e)(2).
Nearly thirty years ago, the California Court of Appeal concluded that this meant that “cars sold with a balance remaining on the manufacturer’s new motor vehicle warranty” qualified as “new motor vehicles” under Song-Beverly. Jensen v. BMW of N. Amer., Inc., 35 Cal.App.4th 112, 123 (1995). This interpretation led to a groundswell of cases seeking relief under Song-Beverly for used vehicles that remained under warranty.
In 2018, the Rodriguez plaintiffs sued FCA seeking remedies under the Song-Beverly Act for a vehicle that they bought used, but which still had a portion of the five-year/100,000-mile warranty remaining. FCA moved for summary judgment, arguing that this was not a “new motor vehicle” within the meaning of the statute. The trial court granted the motion and in 2022, the Court of Appeal affirmed. In doing so, it cast doubt on the Jensen court’s interpretation of “new motor vehicles.”
The Supreme Court of California granted review without depublishing Rodriguez. The case attracted significant attention, including fourteen amici filing briefs. Adding to the tense environment, in May 2024, another district of the Court of Appeal decided Stiles v. Kia Motors America, Inc., 101 Cal.App.5th 913 (2024) (review granted), disagreeing with the Court of Appeal’s opinion in Rodriguez and relying on Jensen.
Today, the Supreme Court affirmed Rodriguez in an unanimous opinion. It agreed that if the Legislature had intended for the phrase “new motor vehicle” to include any car sold with a portion of the warranty remaining, it would have done so clearly. It buttressed this conclusion by pointing out that the specific exception for dealer-owned and demonstrator vehicles should be narrowly construed. It also discussed Song-Beverly’s statutory framework and legislative history, both of which support distinguishing between a new vehicle and a used one still under warranty. The Court also specifically disapproved of Jensen’s broad language.
Rodriguez is sure to be an important tool in stemming the California warranty crisis, eliminating hundreds—if not thousands—from the California court system.