Phillips v. Volvo Penta of the Americas, LLC

Summary

The California Court of Appeal considers whether Volvo Penta, which manufactured and expressly warranted a boat’s engine and power package, was required under the Song–Beverly Consumer Warranty Act to replace or reimburse the purchase price of the entire boat after repeated overheating problems. The court holds that the statutory replace-or-reimburse remedy is limited to the goods sold and warranted by the manufacturer, here the power package rather than the entire boat. The court affirms summary judgment for Volvo.

Holdings

1. When a manufacturer sells and expressly warrants a component of a larger consumer product, the statutory duty to replace the goods or reimburse the buyer after unsuccessful repair attempts extends to the goods sold and warranted by that manufacturer, not automatically to the entire product incorporating the component.
2. Summary judgment for Volvo was proper because Phillips failed to provide evidence creating a triable issue that he sustained damages cognizable under the Act after Volvo replaced the defective engine.
3. The court declined to consider Phillips's argument that replacing the engine did not replace the entire warranted power package because the argument was raised for the first time in the reply brief without good cause.

Questions Presented

1. Whether a component manufacturer that expressly warrants only its power package must, under Civil Code section 1793.2(d)(1), replace or reimburse the purchase price of the entire boat incorporating that component.
2. Whether Phillips presented evidence creating a triable issue of fact as to damages under Civil Code section 1794 after Volvo replaced the warranted engine.
3. Whether the court should consider Phillips's argument, raised for the first time in his reply brief, that replacing the engine did not replace the entire warranted power package.

Disposition

affirmed