When a manufacturer is unable to repair a defective new car, it must either give the consumer a replacement equivalent car or make “restitution.” (Civ. Code 1793.22.) The required restitution can result in the consumer being better off than before buying the car. However, in this case, the court holds that the required restitution does not include the portions of insurance premiums for other than collision coverage after the manufacturer was unable to repair the vehicle and thus liable to replace it or pay restitution. During that period, the consumer holds the car for the manufacturer and pays collision insurance for the manufacturer’s benefit, but not other coverages. The manufacturer also need not pay restitution for any extended service contract that the consumer purchased from the dealer. Finally, the treble damages liability for willful violations applies only to manufacturers who do not replace or repay during the period between when they become liable to do so (second time inability to repair) and the consumer’s filing of suit and whose failure to repair or replace is “willful”–meaning worse than negligent and not based on a reasonable investigation of the car and alleged defect that didn’t confirm the existence of the defect.