On March, 2, 2011, the Forth Appellate District of the California Court of Appeal ruled in Martinez v. Kia Motors America, Inc.that the Califonia Lemon Law (Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act) does not require California consumers to have possession of a lemon vehicle in order to qualify for California Lemon Law remedies. In Martinez, the consumer was denied warranty coverage by a Kia. The vehicle was repossessed by the lender and the consumer thereafter filed a lawsuit against Kia claiming restitution remedies under the California Lemon Law. Kia argued on appeal that in order to qualify for California Lemon Law restitution remedies, the consumer must have possession of the vehicle. The court disagreed observing that the specific language of the California Lemon Law does not require that a California consumer have possession of the lemon vehicle in order to qualify for California Lemon Law remedies.  The consumer need only prove the basic elements of a California Lemon Law claim in order to be entitled to damages.  Once the basic California Lemon Law claim elements are met, the manufacturer has an immediate duty to provide the consumer California Lemon Law remedies.  Therefore, any California consumer who does not have possession of a lemon vehicle may nevertheless be entitled to California Lemon Law damages.

Tags: California Court of Appeal, california lemon law, California lemon law attorney, california lemon law attorneys, California lemon law lawyers, California lemon law laywer, Inc., Martinez v. Kia Motors America, Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act

This entry was posted under california lemon law. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.