Spingola v. BMW of North America, LLC

Background

Darrell Spingola purchased a used BMW 535i Gran Turismo on January 11, 2011. The vehicle had 9,353 miles on it and was covered by BMW’s new-vehicle limited warranty, which applied for four years or 50,000 miles from the vehicle’s original in-service date of September 1, 2010.

At a pretrial conference, Spingola identified two alleged defects supporting his claims: an alleged VANOS-system defect that caused oil to build up and leak, and allegedly improper recall work on the VANOS system that allowed contaminants to enter the engine, causing rough running and sputtering. The court stated that Spingola would be limited to those defects.

BMW moved for summary judgment on both claims. Spingola conceded that his implied-warranty claim failed as a matter of law. He opposed summary judgment on his express-warranty claim, arguing that it was based on BMW’s seven-year/70,000-mile California emissions warranty rather than the four-year/50,000-mile warranty. That emissions warranty listed the VANOS adjustment unit as a covered part for the vehicle model.

Legal standards and analysis

Summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence shows no genuine dispute about a material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. A genuine dispute exists when the evidence could allow a reasonable jury to decide for the nonmoving party.

Under the Song-Beverly Act, an express-warranty claim requires evidence that the product had a defect or nonconformity covered by the warranty, that the product was presented to an authorized representative for repair, and that the manufacturer did not repair it after a reasonable number of attempts. The court also explained that a plaintiff need not prove the defect’s exact cause if the evidence shows that the vehicle failed to conform to the warranty after a reasonable number of repair attempts.

The court rejected BMW’s argument that the seven-year/70,000-mile emissions warranty applied only if the vehicle had failed a California smog test. The warranty language stated that the vehicle could be brought in after either a failed smog test or discovery of a defect. The court also noted evidence from Spingola’s expert that a code appearing after the recall work would have prevented the vehicle from passing a California smog test.

The court held that Spingola nevertheless had to show a defect specifically in the covered VANOS unit. The record contained no evidence that the bolts replaced during the recall were broken or defective, and there was no evidence that the dealer replaced the entire VANOS system. But the expert also offered opinions that the recall work likely caused VANOS-system failures and related vehicle problems. Although the expert acknowledged that the VANOS and Valvetronic systems were separate and that the relevant code was not a VANOS code, he testified that the systems were closely connected. The court concluded that a reasonable jury could find that faulty recall work caused defects in the VANOS system.

The court also rejected BMW’s argument that contamination caused by a technician’s error could not qualify as a defect under the Song-Beverly Act. BMW cited no supporting authority, and the warranty language appeared to cover defects caused by inadequate maintenance performed by an authorized BMW center while doing warranty repair work.

Disposition

The court granted BMW’s motion for summary judgment as to the breach-of-implied-warranty claim and dismissed that claim with prejudice. The court denied the motion with respect to the breach-of-express-warranty claim. Judge Joseph C. Spero entered the order on November 15, 2019.