Consumers for Auto Reliability & Safety (CARS)
take on Daimler Chrysler Corporation

In February 2003, Norman Taylor & Associates filed an amicus curiae or "friend of the court" brief with the California Supreme Court. This brief was filed to protect consumer regulations that were designed to hold auto manufacturers to the warranties they promise consumers as a sales incentive.

Norman Taylor & Associates filed the amicus curiae brief on behalf of the nationally-acclaimed consumer-protection organization, Consumers for Auto Safety and Reliability (CARS), in the case of Rosemarie and William Gavaldon vs. DaimlerChrysler Corporation. The brief presented arguments against the weakening of consumer protection laws by manufacturers who claim that Service Contracts sold with a new vehicle at the time of sale are not "warranties," and therefore do not provide the same legal protections as written warranties.

The Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act has provided protection for consumers purchasing products with warranties since 1970. One of the primary purposes of the Act was to give consumers the necessary legal muscle to ensure that manufacturers who lure buyers to their products with promises of quality for a certain term would actually fulfill those promises.

In their case against DaimlerChrysler Corporation, the Gavaldon's won at the trial level. However, that decision was overturned by the 4th Appellate District, Division 3, which accepted the manufacturer's argument that its "Service Contract" should not be treated as a warranty, even though the consumers purchase it at the time of original sale and its language bore all the hallmarks of a written warranty. If the 4th District's decision were allowed to stand, it would open the door to such nonsense as manufacturers renaming their new car warranties, "Service Contracts," thereby sidestepping responsibilities they would otherwise have under the Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. The manufacturers could also place further burdens on consumers such as additional payments, returning vehicles to the factory at their own cost, and otherwise undermining protections that the Act specifically upholds, all by the simple maneuver of putting a different label on their warranties.

"If a manufacturer wants to reap the advantages of appearing to stand behind its products, then it should stand behind its products." Norman Taylor