Another Win for Freightliner in Lemon Law Action

January 1, 2003

Marking his second win for Freightliner in the past two years, Richard C. Moreno, successfully defended the chassis corporation in Song-Beverly Lemon Law action in Orange County, California.

Plaintiff, Kathryn Holmes, had sued Freightliner Custom Chassis Corporation alleging that it had breached the terms of its written warranty covering the chassis portion of her motor home. She also filed suits against Cummins Corporation, the company that manufactured the engine and Rexhall Industries, who manufactured the coach portion of the motor home.

Ms. Holmes purchased the subject motor home from Irvine R.V. and contended that certain representations were made to her regarding the motor home, including its year and engine size. She later found out that Irvine R.V. had misrepresented the engine size by informing her that the vehicle was equipped with a 300 h.p. Cummins engine when in fact, it was equipped with a 230 h.p. Cummins engine. One year after the purchase, Ms. Holmes experienced a massive engine failure, which required a replacement of the engine.

Freightliner Custom Chassis Corporation prevailed on a motion for summary adjudication on the issue of whether or not Freightliner had been given a reasonable number of attempts to repair any alleged defects and/or non-conformities as is required under the Song-Beverly Lemon Law statute. The court also granted Freightliner's motion for summary judgment on the plaintiff's cause of action under the California Commercial Code.

At trial, Ms. Holmes presented evidence regarding the manner in which the engine failed and the circumstances surrounding the failure. Freightliner argued that the engine failed as the result of a coolant leak at the heater core and the heater core was not a component part manufactured, or installed, by Freightliner and there fore did not fall under its expressed warranty.

The judge granted Freightliner's motion for non-suit on the grounds that plaintiff had not met her burden of proof as to which of the defendants was responsible for the engine failure.