Trial Victory in “ Lemon Law” Case Against Volvo

Siplin v. Volvo Cars of North America

Venue: California - Los Angeles Superior Court, Central District
Verdict: Defense verdict
Type of Case: Breach of Consumer Legal Remedies Act and Fraud
Party Represented: Volvo Cars of North America, LLC

Plaintiff alleged that his used 2006 Volvo C70 had been out of service with electrical problems for 98 days in the first ten months of ownership and claimed he was entitled to restitution in the amount of $57,674.40 for breach of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act and fraud against Volvo Cars and Volvo of Los Angeles. The jury selection resulted in a pro-plaintiff jury panel.

At the onset of trial, we provided a detailed opening statement setting forth that all of the days the vehicle was out of service were due to cosmetic issues and not as a result of defects. Emphasis was placed on the fact that the Volvo never stalled, never had to be towed, and operated without problem. The only warranty issues were windows repairs, a hard top repair, and a wiper repair, which were not duplicated after the repairs were made. It was also pointed out that fault codes were never detected for the windows or the top. The judge had previously denied without prejudice plaintiff's prior vehicle history.

However, during plaintiff's cross-examination, he denied any prior complaints concerning any vehicle and the court allowed the defense to question plaintiff regarding his prior history of two vehicle buy-backs. We further cross-examined plaintiff concerning the fact that the Volvo was repaired and the repairs were satisfactory. The defense witness testimony was based upon a review of all repair orders, which indicated that the Volvo only had five days out of service for warranty repairs with the balance of the 98 days being for cosmetic repairs. Plaintiff gave his closing argument, stating that the vehicle was out of service for over 98 days during the first ten months of ownership and therefore the presumption applied that the Volvo had a nonconformity or defect that was not repaired after a reasonable number of attempts.

In the defense's closing, it was explained that plaintiff knew he was purchasing a used car and therefore did not have a right of recovery for fraud or breach of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act.
We further explained that since none of the repairs could be duplicated and most of the days out of service were due to cosmetic issues, the California Lemon Law clearly did not apply. Jury deliberation commenced and the jury returned with an 11 to 1 defense verdict.