Phillips v. Volvo Penta of the Americas

── Phillips v. Volvo Penta of the Americas ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: June 04, 2026 Category: General Filed 5/6/26; Certified for Publication 6/3/26 (order attached) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE BRIAN PHILLIPS, Plaintiff and Appellant, A170727 v. VOLVO PENTA OF THE (Alameda County AMERICAS, LLC, et al., Super. Ct. No. RG19038018) Defendants and Respondents. Brian Phillips appeals a summary judgment in favor of Volvo Penta of the Americas, LLC (Volvo), which manufactured and expressly warranted the engine of a boat Phillips bought. For reasons unknown, the engine repeatedly overheated, disabling the boat, which Phillips twice sent to an authorized Volvo service-and-repair facility. After the boat again overheated, Phillips sent it to the facility a third time. This time, they found a cracked manifold had allowed water to enter the engine, but Volvo declined at first to authorize warranty repairs, and Phillips sued under the Song–Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (the Act) (Civ. Code, § 1790 et seq.; statutory references are to this code unless otherwise designated). Eleven days later, before the relevant Volvo employees learned of the lawsuit, Volvo reversed its decision and agreed to replace the engine at no cost. 1  Phillips continued his lawsuit. Noting that, if consumer goods do not conform to an express warranty, and a manufacturer fails after a reasonable number of attempts to repair them, the Act requires it to “replace the goods or reimburse the buyer in an amount equal to the purchase price paid by the buyer” (§ 1793.2, subd. (d)(1) (§ 1793.2(d)(1))), Phillips contended that Volvo’s replacement of the component it had warranted—the engine—did not satisfy that duty: The relevant “good,” he claims, is the boat as a whole, so Volvo must replace the boat or pay him its full price. Phillips offered no evidence that the engine’s overheating damaged any other part of the boat, and he cites no authority suggesting that the Act requires Volvo nonetheless to replace or “repurchase” the entire boat. We affirm the judgment in Volvo’s favor. OVERVIEW OF THE ACT We first briefly set forth the framework of duties the Act imposes on “manufacturer[s] of consumer goods sold in this state and for which the manufacturer has made an express warranty” (§ 1793.2, subd. (a)), as well as the corresponding remedies it affords buyers of such goods. For argument’s sake, we assume that the boat and the engine both satisfy the Act’s definition of “consumer goods” (§ 1791, subd. (a)), 1 and that Volvo comes within its definition of a “manufacturer” of such goods (id., subd. (j)) based on its manufacture and express warranty of the engine and related parts. A manufacturer of consumer goods sold in this state subject to express warranties must authorize sufficient service-and-repair facilities in this state to carry out those warranties. (§ 1793.2, subd. (b).) If a good’s nonconformity 1 Although it is a vehicle with a motor, Phillips’s boat undisputedly is not subject to the distinct subset of provisions within the Act, commonly known as the Lemon Law, that apply to a “new motor vehicle”—a term defined to include only terrestrial conveyances. (§ 1793.2, subd. (d)(2)). 2 with such a warranty necessitates repair, the buyer shall deliver the goods to such a facility. (Id., subds. (b), (c).) If the facility “does not service or repair the goods to conform to the applicable express warranties after a reasonable number of attempts, the manufacturer shall either replace the goods or reimburse the buyer in an amount equal to the purchase price paid by the buyer” (less the value of the buyer’s use of the