Clay

INTRODUCTION

The Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, Civil Code sections 1790 et seq. (hereinafter, Song-Beverly), “is a remedial measure intended for the protection of consumers and should be given a construction consistent with that purpose.” (Oregel v. American Izusu Motors, Inc. (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 1094, 1103.) When assessing the viability of claims made under Song-Beverly, it is the job of courts to construe the statute in a way “calculated to bring its benefits into action.” (See Kwan v. Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc. (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 174, 184.) Unfortunately in the present case, the trial court seems to have restricted the statute’s scope based on improper criteria and thereby cut off plaintiff’s viable causes of action at the pleading stage. We reverse.

FACTS

Appellant Lindsay Clay purchased a 2013 Subaru Impreza from respondent Carmax Auto Superstores California (Carmax) in January 2020 . At the time of the purchase, appellant was told the car was in excellent condition and came with a Carmax warranty. Carmax sales staff provided appellant with a report indicating the vehicle had been through a certified inspection process examining all of its major…