Tuesday, December 9, 2025
Page 3
Court of Appeal:
Judge’s Award Under Lemon Law Amounted to Windfall
Opinion Says Jurist Erred in Failing to Order Return of Faulty Vehicle, Allowing Recovery of Payments Associated With Replacement Truck
By a MetNews Staff Writer
Div. Three of the Fourth District Court of Appeal has held that a trial judge wrongly gave a windfall to a plaintiff, who asserted a breach of the implied warranty of merchantability under California’s “lemon law” relating to his purchase of a Dodge Ram, by failing to require the party to return the faulty truck after he revoked acceptance and by allowing him to recover insurance and interest payments relating to a replacement vehicle.
Saying that the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, codified at Civil Code §1790 et seq., provides purchasers who have revoked acceptance of a vehicle based on a breach of an implied warranty with the remedies outlined in the Commercial Code, the court said Friday that the available relief is limited to that which would put the aggrieved party back in as good a position as if the manufacturer had fully performed on its promises.
Finding that the portion of the award allowing the plaintiff to recoup the purchase price plus interest and insurance costs on the Ram would fully compensate him for his losses, the court declared that any additional recovery was improper.
Justice Nathan Scott wrote the opinion, joined in by Acting Presiding Justice Joanne Motoike and Justice Thomas A. Delaney, saying that “[w]e…publish this decision to clarify the scope of Commercial Code remedies for breach of implied warranty.”
Declaring that the judge correctly withheld damages for the purchase price of the replacement truck because the plaintiff had retained the defective vehicle and had failed to show that it was completely unusable, Scott said the jurist erred by bestowing damages “unrelated to [the] breach and failing to order” the return of the defective Ram “after awarding him the purchase price.”
Attorney Fee Award
The court also reversed the award of attorney fees to the plaintiff based on Code of Civil Procedure §998, writing:
“[T]he cash component of [the manufacturer’s pretrial] offer exceeded the damages [the plaintiff] will ultimately recover. [The company] offered…$70,000. [The plaintiff’s] recovery amounts to about $68,540 ($66,240 for the Ram’s purchase price and about $2,300 for insurance), once the erroneous damages components…are excluded….And contrary to the trial court’s reasoning, [the plaintiff] will not retain the RAM.”
Rejecting the plaintiff’s assertion that last year’s California Supreme Court decision in Niedermeier v. FCA US LLC,. which held that the act’s restitution remedy is not reduced by either trade-in credit or sale proceeds where a consumer has been forced to get rid of a defective vehicle that the manufacturer won’t fix or buy back, compelled a different result, Scott wrote:
“That case addressed statutory remedies for breach of express warranties under section 1793.2, not Commercial Code remedies for breach of implied warranties….This holding has no bearing on this case. Because [the plaintiff] revoked acceptance under the Commercial Code, he is required to return the Ram.”
Complaint Filed
Seeking relief under the statutory scheme was Michael J. Maneri, who filed a complaint against the manufacturer of his Ram truck, FCA US LLC. In the 2019 pleading, he claimed that the vehicle began having intermittent problems with the “infotainment system,” sideview mirrors, and the one-touch window roll-up function shortly after he purchased it for $66,240 in May 2018.
After multiple trips to the dealership did not resolve the problems, he contacted FCA, and the company arranged for an inspection of the vehicle in December 2018. FCA returned the Ram to Maneri in February 2019 and offered to replace or repurchase the truck, with a deduction for mileage and without any remuneration for aftermarket upgrades.
Maneri asserted both express and implied warranty breaches under the Song-Beverly Act. In July 2019, FCA offered him $70,000 plus attorney fees to settle the case; he declined to accept the offer.
After Orange Superior Court Judge Nick A. Dourbetas granted FCA’s motion for summary adjudication as to the express warranty claim based on the company’s offer to repurchase the Ram after the inspection, the parties stipulated to a breach of the implied warranty of merchantability and agreed to a bench trial to determine damages.
Maneri sought over $155,000 in damages. He provided combined premium statements covering the two vehicles and loan documents relating to the Ford. Dourbetas awarded Maneri about $74,600, consisting of the purchase price, loan interest, and insurance costs, and did not direct the plaintiff to return the Ram.
Maneri sought attorney fees and was awarded $308,000, of which only approximately $7,400 was attributable to preoffer work. Both parties appealed the judgment, and FCA challenged the fee award.
Not ‘Cover’
Saying that “[t]he costs Maneri paid for long-term rentals and the Ford truck do not qualify as cover damages” where he “paid less for them…than he paid for the Ram,” Scott opined:
“Awarding him the cost of additional vehicles—after he revoked acceptance and declined FCA’s repurchase offer— would provide a windfall. that they similarly did not qualify as incidental damages because they were unrelated to the care or custody of the defective vehicle.”
The jurist remarked:
“We agree with FCA that the trial court erred by awarding Maneri damages for (1) loan interest and (2) certain insurance premiums. The evidence does not support the court’s findings that these amounts related entirely to the Ram.”
He continued:
“Awarding these amounts was error….Maneri was entitled to recover expenses related to the postrevocation care and custody of the Ram and other reasonable expenses incident to FCA’s breach….He was not entitled to loan and insurance costs related to other vehicles. Nor was he entitled to expenses associated with driving the Ram, such as liability insurance.”
Pointing out that “[a] buyer who justifiably revokes acceptance must return the goods to the seller,” he concluded that the trial court also “erred by failing to order Maneri to return the Ram.” He wrote:
“These erroneous components of the trial court’s judgment total about $6,000. On remand, the court should determine the precise amount by which the judgment must be reduced.”
The case is Maneri v. FCA US LLC, G062826.
Copyright 2025, Metropolitan News Company