Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 22NWCV01038, Date: 2023-04-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22NWCV01038    Hearing Date: April 25, 2023    Dept: C

RIOS v. MESA IMPORTS, LLC, et al.

CASE NO.:  22NWCV01038

HEARING:  4/25/23 @ 10:30 AM

#4

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant Volkswagen Puente Hills’ demurrer to the second cause of action is SUSTAINED with 30 days leave to amend.

Moving Party to give NOTICE.

Defendant Volkswagen Puente Hills demurs to the 2^nd cause of action on the ground that it fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, and is barred by the economic loss rule.

Plaintiff Ryan Rios alleges that Plaintiff delivered a Volkswagen Jetta to Defendant’s repair facility for repair of nonconformities, but Defendant was unable to repair the vehicle after a reasonable number of repair attempts.  (Complaint, ¶¶ 17-18.)  Based thereon, the Complaint asserts causes of action for:

1.    Violation of Song-Beverly – Breach of Express Warranty (v. Volkswagen)

2.    Negligent Repair (v. Purente Hills Volkswagen)

2^nd CAUSE OF ACTION

NEGLIGENT REPAIR: The elements are:  1) Legal duty owed to plaintiffs to use due care; 2) breach of duty; 3) causation; and 4) damage to plaintiff.  (Ladd v. County of San Mateo (1996) 12 Cal.4th 913, 917. 

¶ 27 alleges that Plaintiff delivered the vehicle to Defendant for repair on numerous occasions.  ¶ 28 alleges that Defendant owed a duty to use ordinary
care and skill in storage, preparation and repair of the Subject Vehicle in accordance with industry standards.  ¶ 29 alleges breach, and ¶ 30 alleges resulting damages.  The court finds the allegations sufficiently allege a cause of action for Negligence.

In the alternative, Defendant contends that the claim is barred by the Economic Loss Rule.

The economic loss rule provides that “where a purchaser’s expectations in a sale are frustrated because the product he bought is not working properly, his [or her] remedy is said to be in contract alone, for he [or she] has suffered only economic losses.”  (Robinson, supra, 34 Cal.4^th at 988.)  “Tort damages have been permitted in contract cases where a breach of duty directly causes physical injury; for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing in insurance contracts; for wrongful discharge in violation of fundamental public policy; or where the contract was fraudulently induced…. in each of these cases, the duty that gives rise to tort liability is either completely independent of the contract or arises from conduct which is both intentional and intended to harm.”  (Robinson, supra, 34 Cal.4th at 989–990.)

In Robinson, the California Supreme Court carved out a “narrow” and “limited” exception to the economic loss rule, holding that “a defendant's affirmative misrepresentations on which a plaintiff relies and which expose a plaintiff to liability for personal damages independent of the plaintiff's economic loss” is excluded from the economic loss rule.  (Robinson, supra, 34 Cal.4th at 993.) 

Here, Plaintiff alleges a claim for negligent repair, which does not fall within the narrow exceptions carved out by the California Supreme Court in Robinson.  Plaintiff does not allege that Defendant engaged in any intentional misconduct or made any affirmative misrepresentations.

Plaintiff asserts that “California courts clearly recognize an exception to the economic loss rule in cases involving negligent performance of services.”  (Opp. p. 4.)  In support of this claim, Plaintiff relies upon North American Chemical Co. v. Superior Court (1997) 59 Cal.App.4^th 764 and Robinson Helicopter Co., Inc. v. Dana Corp. (2004) 34 Cal.4^th 979.  Various courts have questioned the validity of North American Chemical and this court declines to follow it.  As previously discussed, the California Supreme Court’s opinion in Robinson provides no support for Plaintiff’s position.  Accordingly, the economic loss rule bars Plaintiff’s recovery under the second cause of action.

The demurrer to the second cause of action is SUSTAINED with 30 days leave to amend.