The Court Disapproved of Felisilda v. FCA US LLC (2020) To The Extent It Suggested Manufacturers Could Make Use Of Dealers' Arbitration Clauses. An issue knocking about in California Courts of Appeal has been whether Ford Motor Company and other automobile manufacturers could piggyback off arbitration clauses found in the contracts between dealerships and […]
One More Opinion Rejects Reasoning In Felisilda. In Rivera et al. v. Superior Court of Ventura County, B334522 (2/6 9/23/24) (Gilbert, P.J.) petitioners Rivera and Espinosa sued Ford Motor Company under California's Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (the "lemon law") after their Ford F-250 truck experienced repeated mechanical issues. They also included Ford of Ventura, […]
One More California Appellate Case Rejects Felisilda. We have written before about courts rejecting the application of the equitable estoppel doctrine to allow vehicle manufacturers to piggyback on to the arbitration provision in sales contracts between customers and automobile dealerships. In Davis v. Nissan North America, Inc. v. Nissan North America, Inc., D083006 (4/1 […]
California Court of Appeal, 3rd District, Disagrees With California Court of Appeal, 3rd District. A Third District California Court of Appeal panel composed of Justices Renner, Earl, and Hull, disagrees with an earlier Third District panel composed of Justices Hoch, Robie, and Murray. The issue is whether an automobile manufacturer can rely on an […]
Order Denying Ford Motor Company's Motion To Compel Arbitration Is Affirmed. In the Ford Motor Warranty Cases, No. B312261 (2/2 4/4/23) (Grimes, Stratton, Viramontes), FMC sought to compel arbitration with plaintiffs who purchased automobiles and complained about manufacturing defects. However, FMC's argument relied on dealership contracts with arbitration clauses to which FMC was not […]
A Case Of First Impression. Unless you practice in this area, you may not know that in an uninsured motorist arbitration between the motorist with uninsured motorist coverage and her insurance company, discovery disputes are addressed to the court, not to the arbitrator. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Cora Robinson, A158467 (1/1 […]
Insurance Code Section 11580.2 Was Dispositive. California Insurance Code section 11580.2, subdivision (f) provides that disputes between insureds and insurers over entitlement to recover damages caused by an uninsured or under insured motorist [UIM], or the amount of damages, must be resolved by agreement or arbitration. When Brett McIsaac sued Foremost Insurance over an […]
Automobile Dealerships Are Subject To A Narrow Exception To Arbitration — But The Exception Did Not Apply Here. 1958 Subaru 360. Licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported, 2.5 Generic, 2.0 Generic and 1.0 Generic license. Author: Mytho88. Who knew? Automobile dealer franchises are subject to a narrow statutory exception to arbitration under the Motor Vehicle Franchise Arbitration […]
The Court Distinguishes Or Refuses To Follow Similar Cases Involving Nonsignatories. The Court affirms the confirmation of an arbitrator's award in favor of a nonsignatory auto manufacturer in Dina C. Felisilda et al., v. FCA US LLC, No. C086043 (3rd Dist. 7/24/20) (Hoch, Robie, Murray) (filed 7/24, certified for publication 8/14/20). "The Felisildas' claim against […]
Dealer Wanted To Go To Three-Arbitrator Panel After Receiving Adverse Arbitration Award, And Everyone Agreed That ADR Arbitral Forum Lacked “Appellate” Rules. So? Plenty of arbitration disputes arise from arbitration clauses in auto sales contracts and leases – hence our sidebar category, “Automobiles.”. Here’s an unusual one, based on fairly common arbitration provisions. Condon […]