Auto Law Blog

Welcome

Auto Law Blog

Automobile warranty and related consumer claims amount to some of the most common and troublesome legal issues auto dealers face in the course of doing business.

Partner Chris Bruni of Sinunu Bruni LLP provides automobile dealerships effective legal counsel in avoiding and defending these types of claims.  He has successfully tried cases for dealerships involving “Lemon Law” allegations, manufacturing defects and Business and Professions Code 17200 claims. In addition, he was counsel for all DaimlerChrysler-insured dealerships in California for more than seven years, and has handled more than 400 cases on behalf of auto dealerships.  The Auto Law Blog is dedicated to providing analysis and discussion on legal issues impacting auto dealers and manufacturers nationwide.

New York Auto Show a/ka "The Big Apple!"
I recently attended the New York Auto Show--what a scene! While my 11 year old son didn't pick up a Corvette, it sure was a popular attraction. The new C7 promises to give the Europeans a run for their money at a fraction of the cost. I predict GM has a big hit on its hands. Overall attendance appeared to be good at the show. This should bode well for dealers in 2013.

Arbitration is Good

In some cases, parties may prefer arbitration over the time and expense of a jury trial. Not in all cases, just in some. In a recent 2nd District opinion, the Appellate Court held that a dealership had a right to compel arbitration with a customer.

In Flores v West Covina Auto Group, 2nd Appellate District, Div. 8, B238265, the Court upheld the lower court's decision that an arbitration clause in the sales contract was enforceable. The plaintiffs had purchased a vehicle from the dealership and subsequently brought suit against them under various causes of actions, including individual and class action claims for violations of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA). The arbitration clause contained a provision that prohibited any class action claims. As a result plaintiffs opposed the dealership's efforts to compel arbitration. The Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court's ruling and compelled arbitration finding that the arbitration clause was enforceable despite the waiver of the classwide arbitration rights, that the CLRA's prohibition against class waiver is preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act because it stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the and objectives of the FAA and that the arbitration clause was not unconscionable.

This is a lengthy decision and has some interesting facts, but bottom line, if the arbitration clause is written correctly a party has a good chance of having it enforced. Sometimes arbitration is good. 

Hyundai to Settle MPG Claims

Wow. Does anyone really believe the EPA mileage estimates that are attached to new car window stickers? Apparently some Hyundai drivers do. And apparently Hyundai is being held to those estimates.  Automotive News is reporting that Hyundai will reportedly settle a class-action lawsuit claiming the auto manufacturer incorrectly advertised fuel-economy estimates on about  600,000 cars sold in the U.S.

In November, several Hyundai owners sued the car manufacturer in the Central District of the Federal Court in California. The cases were granted class-action status, and all told about 900,000 owners may be affected by the pending settlement. No word on the exact terms, but you can almost bet there are more suits waiting in the wings to be filed against other manufacturers in the future. 

From Employer to Property Owner

Back in May I discussed the Campbell v Ford case, which held that an employer had no duty to protect family members of employees from secondary exposure to asbestos used during the course of the employer's business.

I viewed it as a big win for employers, particularly dealerships where secondary, "take home", exposure to other non-employees may have occurred as a result of work which took place during the course of the employer's business. Well, a funny thing happened at the Court of Appeal in Los Angeles. About a month later the Court modified its holding to state that "a property owner has no duty to protect family members of workers on its premises from secondary exposure to asbestos used during the course of the property owner's business." 

What is the effect of this modification with regard  to automobile dealerships? It depends. If the dealer owns the property where the initial exposure took place, the Campbell case will still hold up. If the dealership occupies the property where the work takes place, but does not own or control the property, you could have a bit of a battle over Campbell. I'll be curious to see how this all shakes out.

As my Grandfather always said, better to own than to rent. Turns out he was right on this one too.