A landmark case has surfaced in California's Second Appellate District, raising significant questions about consumer rights under the state's "lemon law." On August 29, 2024, Luis Valdovinos and his co-plaintiffs filed a complaint against Kia Motors America, Inc. in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. The case centers on whether consumers can recover costs for service contracts and insurance premiums when their new vehicles turn out to be defective.
The case began when Luis Valdovinos purchased a new 2014 Kia Optima on May 10, 2014. Despite its initial promise, the vehicle soon exhibited persistent issues, including problems with its reverse gear and windows. Valdovinos made multiple visits to the dealership but received no satisfactory resolution. By January 2015, he demanded that Kia buy back his car under California’s Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (the Act), which mandates that manufacturers repurchase or replace defective vehicles if they cannot be repaired after a reasonable number of attempts.
Valdovinos' demands were met with limited responses from Kia. The company offered to refund five monthly payments as compensation for inconvenience and later proposed three options: replacing the vehicle, repurchasing it for $11,800.36 (with deductions), or sending a technician along with a $10,000 goodwill gesture. Valdovinos rejected these offers and continued using the car until March 2022 while bringing it into dealerships ten more times without resolving the issue.
On September 8, 2016, Valdovinos sued Kia for violating the Act. The trial did not commence until May 2022. During the trial, evidence was presented showing that despite numerous attempts by both dealership mechanics and Kia technicians to diagnose and fix the problem, they failed to replicate or repair it effectively. A jury found that Kia had breached both express and implied warranties under the Act and awarded Valdovinos $127,976.70 in total damages.
Kia filed post-trial motions arguing that certain costs included in the restitution award—such as amounts paid for a third-party service contract and insurance premiums—should not be recoverable under the Act. The court agreed partially but affirmed other parts of the judgment. It concluded that consumers are not entitled to recover amounts paid for third-party service contracts or full insurance premiums as "restitution" under the Act because these do not fall within its definitions of actual price paid or incidental damages.
The plaintiffs seek several forms of relief from the court: affirmation of their right to recover full restitution costs including third-party service contracts and all insurance premiums paid during ownership of a defective vehicle; civil penalties up to twice their restitution amount due to what they argue is willful violation by Kia; and coverage of legal fees incurred during litigation.
Representing Valdovinos are attorneys Jessica E. Garland and Jennifer D. Bennett from Gupta Wessler LLP along with Radomir Roger Kirnos from Knight Law Group LLP. Defending Kia Motors America are Lisa Perrochet from Horvitz & Levy LLP alongside Shane H. McKenzie and John B. Sprangers; Kate S. Lehrman from Lehrman Villegas Chinery & Douglas LLP also represents them.
Judge Steven J Kleifield presides over this complex case bearing Case ID BC6332838.