This opinion concludes that plaintiff stated a CLRA claim against CarMax for failing to disclose that the brake lamp switch in the car was subject to a safety recall.  Disclosure of the fact was necessary to make non-misleading CarMax’s statement that the car was in excellent condition and had passed inspection including of the brake lights.  Also, disclosure was required because the defect made driving the car dangerous. Plaintiff adequately alleged damage (though the brake lamp switch was later repaired by CarMax for free) by averring that she would not have bought the car had she known of the brake lamp safety recall.  Because plaintiff stated a CLRA claim, she also alleged a viable UCL unlawful practice claim. CarMax’s contract effectively disclaimed express warranties and limited any implied warranty of merchantability to 30 days after purchase, promising to pay 100% of parts or labor for repairs needed due to components failing within 30 days after purchase.  Under this provision, the buyer didn’t have to report the failure within 30 days, only the failure had to occur within that period.  However, here CarMax did repair the failure for free.  So the buyer couldn’t recover any damages for breach of implied warranty–although he could recover on other claims for the same defect.

California Court of Appeal, Fifth District (Franson, J.); January 30, 2018; 2018 WL 627453.