Rheinhart v. Nissan North America, Inc.

Summary

The California Court of Appeal considered whether a prelitigation settlement agreement and release barred a consumer’s claims under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. The court held that the Act’s antiwaiver provision does not categorically prohibit settlement agreements, but concluded that the particular release contravened the plaintiff’s substantive statutory rights and was void and unenforceable as against public policy. The court reversed the summary judgment entered for Nissan.

Holdings

1. Section 1790.1 is not limited to warranty waivers made at the time of purchase; its broad antiwaiver language encompasses statutory remedies afforded to buyers under the Song-Beverly Act. The provision does not categorically prohibit every settlement of Song-Beverly Act claims, however.
2. The release was void and unenforceable as against public policy because, under the undisputed circumstances, it contravened Rheinhart's substantive right to elect replacement or restitution and diminished his statutory rights.
3. Nissan was not entitled to summary judgment because the release could not, as a matter of law, bar Rheinhart's Song-Beverly Act claims under the circumstances presented.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Civil Code section 1790.1's antiwaiver provision applies to a prelitigation settlement agreement and release concerning Song-Beverly Act claims.
2. Whether the settlement agreement and release was void and unenforceable as against public policy because it diminished Rheinhart's substantive statutory rights to replacement or restitution and related remedies.
3. Whether Nissan was entitled to summary judgment based on the release.

Disposition

reversed