In Orue v. Ford Motor Service Co., 2011 WL 6176190 (9th Cir. 2011), the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that a service contract complied with Song-Beverly because it conferred benefits additional to the Manufacturer’s warranty: 


The district court correctly concluded that the service contract sold by Ford did not violate the Song–Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, Cal Civ.Code §§ 1790 et seq. , because it provided additional benefits not available under the manufacturer’s express warranty. Under Song–Beverly, a service contract may run concurrently with a manufacturer’s express warranty if “the contract covers items or costs not covered by the express warranty or … the contract provides relief to the purchaser not available under the express warranty.” Cal. Civ.Code § 1794.41(a)(3). We agree with the district court that the plain language of the statute permits a service contract to overlap or run concurrently with an express warranty so long as it provides some additional benefits not contained in the express warranty.    Here, Ford’s service contract provided three benefits not covered by the manufacturer’s warranty: (1) emergency travel expense reimbursement up to $500; (2) destination assistance of up to $75 in the event that the vehicle became disabled due to collision or failure; and (3) one additional annual fuel delivery service. Thus, the service contract did not violate Song–Beverly, and the district court correctly granted summary judgment in favor of Ford.