Gail Hunt vs. American Honda Motor Co., Inc.

Case Background

On July 12, 2023, Plaintiff Gail Hunt filed a lawsuit against American Honda Motor Co. alleging breach of warranty under the California Civil Code. The case was filed in the California Superior Court, Los Angeles County. Judge Michael P. Vicencia presided over the case. [Case number: 23LBCV01300]

Cause

Gail Hunt served as the Plaintiff in this case and resided in Los Angeles County, California. In this complaint, the term “Defendant” referred to all parties named within. The American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (“Honda” or “Defendant”) operated as a corporation under California law and was registered to conduct business in the state.

On April 1, 2019, Gail Hunt entered into a warranty contract with Honda regarding a 2019 Honda Fit, identified by the vehicle identification number 3HGGK5H87KM736094. This vehicle was manufactured and/or distributed by Honda. The warranty included several provisions, such as a bumper-to-bumper warranty, a powertrain warranty, and an emission warranty. A true copy of this warranty is included as Exhibit A, and its terms are incorporated into the complaint.

According to the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, the vehicle qualified as “consumer goods” intended primarily for family or household use, and Hunt utilized it for these purposes. As defined by the Act, Hunt was a “buyer” of consumer goods, while Honda acted as a “manufacturer” and/or “distributor.”

Hunt justified revoking the vehicle’s acceptance under Civil Code section 1794, either by filing this complaint or prior to it. The causes of action stemmed from Honda’s warranty obligations related to the vehicle. Notably, defects and nonconformities arose during the express warranty period, including electrical and engine issues. These problems significantly impaired the vehicle’s use, value, and safety.

As a result, the vehicle’s value diminished to being virtually worthless. Under the Song-Beverly Act, Honda had a duty to either replace or repurchase the vehicle after a reasonable number of repair attempts. However, Honda failed to promptly fulfill this obligation, neglecting to replace the vehicle or provide restitution as required.

Damages

The Plaintiff suffered damages due to the Defendant’s failure to meet obligations under the implied warranty. Consequently, the Plaintiff filed this cause of action according to Civil Code section 1794. The Plaintiff sought judgment against the Defendant for the following:

a. General, special, and actual damages based on the evidence presented;
b. Restitution for losses incurred;
c. Any consequential and incidental damages resulting from the breach;
d. A civil penalty amounting to twice the Plaintiff’s actual damages as outlined in Civil Code section 1794, subdivisions (c) or (e);
e. Prejudgment interest at the legal rate;
f. Costs related to the lawsuit and reasonable attorneys’ fees according to Civil Code section 1794, subdivision (d); and
g. Any additional relief the Court deemed appropriate.

Key Arguments and Proceedings

Legal Representation

  • Plaintiff(s): Gail Hunt
    • Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Tionna Carvalho | Hannah C. Theophil
  • Defendant(s): American Honda Motor Co., Inc.
    • Counsel for Defendant(s): Spencer P. Hugret | Jeanette Suarez | Nejla Miles

Claims

First Cause of Action

By Plaintiff Against Defendant Honda
Violation of Subdivision (D) of Civil Code Section 1793.2
The Defendant and its representatives failed to repair the vehicle to meet the express warranties after multiple opportunities. Despite this, Defendant did not promptly replace the vehicle or provide restitution, as required by Civil Code section 1793.2, subdivision (d), and section 1793.1, subdivision (a)(2). The Defendant acted willfully, knowing they could not repair the vehicle, yet they refused to take necessary actions.

Second Cause of Action

By Plaintiff Against Defendant Honda
Violation of Subdivision (B) of Civil Code Section 1793.2
The Plaintiff presented the vehicle to the Defendant’s representative. However, Defendant did not start repairs within a reasonable time and failed to complete them within 30 days, violating Civil Code section 1793.2, subdivision (b). The Plaintiff did not extend the repair timeframe beyond this requirement.

Third Cause of Action

By Plaintiff Against Defendant Honda
Violation of Subdivision (A)(3) of Civil Code Section 1793.2
The Defendant did not provide adequate service literature and replacement parts to its authorized repair facilities during the warranty period. This failure damaged the Plaintiff, prompting this cause of action under Civil Code section 1794.

Fourth Cause of Action

By Plaintiff Against Defendant Honda
Breach of the Implied Warranty of Merchantability
According to Civil Code section 1792, the sale of the vehicle included an implied warranty of merchantability. This warranty lasted as long as the express written warranty, up to one year. The implied warranty ensured the vehicle met several standards: it must pass without objection in trade, be fit for ordinary use, be adequately packaged, and conform to representations made on its label.

At the time of sale, the vehicle had latent defects. These defects constituted a breach of the implied warranty, as the vehicle did not meet the required standards.

Defense

Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (“Honda”) answered Plaintiff Gail Hunt’s complaint as follows: Under section 431.30(d) of the California Code of Civil Procedure, Honda denied every allegation in the complaint. The defense asserted that the Plaintiff did not suffer any damages.

Honda claimed it had fully performed all obligations related to the matters in the complaint. At the time of design, manufacture, and distribution of the vehicle, Honda adhered to the state-of-the-art standards based on the mechanical and technical knowledge available. Honda complied with all applicable industry and government regulations.

Furthermore, Honda argued that Plaintiff’s causes of action had not accrued. The Plaintiff could not prove she suffered any injury directly from the vehicle or its components. Therefore, Honda stated that Plaintiff’s claims regarding the vehicle’s failure to perform were barred by the economic loss rule.

Honda maintained that the vehicle was fit for transportation at all relevant times. Consequently, the Plaintiff was not entitled to relief for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability. Additionally, Honda alleged that some claimed defects appeared more than a year after the vehicle was sold to the Plaintiff. This timing further disqualified the Plaintiff from relief under the implied warranty of merchantability, according to Civil Code §1791.1(c).

Finally, Honda believed that the Plaintiff or others may have improperly maintained the vehicle. As a result, some of the Plaintiff’s concerns might have been caused by inadequate maintenance.

Jury Verdict

On August 22, 2024, the jury determined that the 2019 Honda Fit did not have a defect covered by the warranty that substantially impaired the 2019 Honda Fit’s use, value, or safety to a reasonable buyer in Gail Hunt’s situation. It was held that the 2019 Honda Fit had the same quality as those generally accepted in the trade. Thus, no damages for claims of breach of express warranty or breach of implied warranty were awarded.

On September 9, 2024, Judge Michael P. Vicencia passed a final judgment consistent with the verdict.

Court Documents:

Available upon request