Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 23NWCV02255, Date: 2024-01-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23NWCV02255    Hearing Date: January 25, 2024    Dept: C

VALENCIA v. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.

CASE NO.:  23NWCV02255

HEARING:  01/25/24

#5

Defendant SHAYCO, INC.’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint is SUSTAINED with 15 days leave to amend.

Moving Party to give Notice.

This “lemon law” action was filed by Plaintiff FRANCISCO GONZALEZ (“Plaintiff”) on July 21, 2023.

The Complaint alleges, in pertinent part, “On March 11, 2022, Plaintiff(s) entered into a warranty contract with VGA regarding a 2021 Volkswagen JETTA SEDAN… (‘the Subject Vehicle’)….” (Complaint ¶16.) “Defects and nonconformities to warranty manifested themselves within the applicable express warranty period. The nonconformities substantially impaired the use, value and/or safety of the Subject Vehicle.” (Complaint ¶17.) “VGA was unable to conform the Subject Vehicle to the applicable express warranty after a reasonable number of repair attempts.” (Complaint ¶19.)

The FAC asserts the following causes of action: (1) Violation of Song-Beverly Act – Breach of Express Warranty; (2) Violation of Song-Beverly Act – Breach of Implied Warranty; and (3) Negligent Repair.

Defendant SHAYCO, INC. (“Defendant”) demurs to Plaintiff’s third cause of action for Negligent Repair.

Third Cause of Action – Negligent Repair

Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s third cause of action, as alleged, 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 Helicopter Company v. Dana Corporation (2004) 34 Cal.4th 979, 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. As alleged, the economic loss rule bars Plaintiff’s recovery under the second cause of action.

The demurrer to the third cause of action is SUSTAINED with 15 days leave to amend.