POLEN, J.
Appellant, Vera Rastaedt, appeals the trial court's final judgment entered after the court granted appellee, Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC's (Mercedes), motion for judgment on the pleadings as to Rastaedt's claim of breach of express warranty under the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. 2301, et seq. (MMWA).
On October 16, 2006, Rastaedt purchased a 2005 Mercedes SLK 350 from Mercedes-Benz of Palm Beach for $40,826.80. Mercedes issued and supplied to Rastaedt its written warranty, which
Rastaedt alleges that shortly after she took possession of the vehicle, she learned of various defects that substantially impaired her use and the value and safety of the vehicle. Accordingly, Rastaedt delivered the SLK 350 to the manufacturer, through its authorized dealership network, "on numerous occasions." Rastaedt alleges that the vehicle had been subject to repair on at least three occasions for the same defect and that the defect remained uncorrected. On April 1, 2008, Rastaedt sued Mercedes for breach of express warranty under the MMWA, 15 U.S.C. 2301, et seq. Rastaedt complained of the following defects:
Rastaedt alleges that she provided the manufacturer "sufficient opportunities to repair the SLK350 [sic]" and that the manufacturer was unable and/or failed to repair the defects "within a reasonable number of attempts, reasonable opportunity to cure, and/or reasonable amount of time." Accordingly, Rastaedt revoked her acceptance of the vehicle, but Mercedes refused her demand. Based on these allegations, Rastaedt pled one count of breach of written warranty pursuant to the MMWA, and sought, among other relief, to revoke her acceptance of the vehicle in accordance with 15 U.S.C. § 2310(d) and section 672.608, Florida Statutes, and to recover all monies paid for the vehicle.
In January 2009, following the Third District's decision in Ocana v. Ford Motor Co., 992 So.2d 319 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008), Mercedes moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that Rastaedt's claim was based on a limited warranty which,
Following a hearing, the court ultimately granted the motion for judgment on the pleadings and entered a final judgment for Mercedes. The court found:
Rastaedt now appeals and argues the trial court erred in granting the motion for judgment on the pleadings because the MMWA applies to limited warranties and the court misconstrued the Ocana holding. Mercedes replies that there was no error because the MMWA does not address any substantive requirements for limited warranties, and section 627.719, Florida Statutes, does not correct the defects in the complaint.
A trial court's decision on a motion for judgment on the pleadings is subject to de novo review. Syvrud v. Today Real Estate, Inc., 858 So.2d 1125, 1129 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). The MMWA, 15 U.S.C. §§ 2301, et seq., at issue here, governs written warranties on consumer products. Section 2303 of the MMWA provides for designation of all written warranties as either "full" or "limited" warranties:
Section 2304 of the MMWA provides the minimum federal standards applicable only to full warranties:
15 U.S.C. § 2304. In other words, a full warranty is one that complies with the federal standards established by section 2304. Section 2304(a)(1) provides that, where a manufacturer has issued a full warranty, it must "as a minimum remedy such consumer product within a reasonable time and without charge, in the case of a defect, malfunction, or failure to conform with such written warranty." Id.
As Mercedes points out, the legislative history of the MMWA makes it clear that the "reasonable number of attempts" provision is "designed to rectify the situation where a consumer has received a product which turns out to be a `lemon' or where the supplier's repair system is so ineffectual that defects are not corrected even though the product is repeatedly returned for repair." S.Rep. No. 151, 93rd Cong., 1st Sess. 19 (1973).
Here, Mercedes relies heavily on Ocana, in which a lessee of a Ford vehicle sued Ford under the MMWA, alleging that he had given the vehicle to Ford to fix four different times during the course of a single year; that Ford failed to fix the vehicle within a reasonable period of time; and as such, Ford had violated the MMWA. 992 So.2d at 322-23. The Ocana court held:
Id. at 323-24 (citations omitted; emphasis added). The limited express warranty issued by Ford on the leased vehicle in Ocana stated: "[Ford] warrants that during the warranty period, if a Land Rover vehicle is properly operated and maintained, repairs required to correct defects in factory-supplied materials or factory workmanship will be performed without charge upon presentment for service[.]" Id. at 324. The Ocana court determined that, in order "[t]o recover for a breach of this warranty, a warrantee therefore must allege and prove that Ford refused or failed to adequately repair a covered item." Id. The court found that instead of following this more traditional pleading pathway, Ocana sought to impose liability on Ford "by legally engrafting the Federal minimum standards applicable to `full (statement of duration) ... warrant[ies]' found in section 2304(a) of the MMWA [...] onto
Id. In his complaint, Ocana alleged only that "PLAINTIFF has taken the VEHICLE to the MANUFACTURER'S seller/agent on at least four (4) separate occasions." Id. However, the court found that "[t]here is no allegation Ford did not comply with a provision of the express warranty" Id. at 324 (emphasis added). The court stated that "no allegation in the complaint that Ford either refused to repair the vehicle or otherwise failed to adequately repair the vehicle under the warranty at any time." Id. at 322 (emphasis added). Instead, the gravamen of the plaintiff's complaint in Ocana was that "`Ford Motor Company and Warren Henry Automobiles[,] Inc. breached their express and implied warranties [under the MMWA] by failing to repair the vehicle within a reasonable amount of time or reasonable number of repair attempts' within the meaning of section 2304...." Id. at 322-23. The trial court concluded this focus of the complaint was insufficient to prosecute a MMWA claim for breach of a limited warranty, and, upon counsel's representation that he did not desire to amend his complaint on this or any other ground, dismissed the complaint with prejudice as to Ford. Id. at 323. Because the warrantee in Ocana merely alleged that Ford failed to repair the vehicle within a reasonable amount of time, the court held he failed to state a cause of action for breach of a limited warranty under section 2304 of the MMWA. Id. at 324.
However, as stated above, Rastaedt's limited warranty provides:
(Emphasis added). Thus, given the language of Rastaedt's express limited warranty, to plead a cause of action for breach of warranty under the MMWA, Rastaedt simply had to allege that Mercedes failed to make the repairs or replacements necessary to correct the defects in the vehicle after being given a reasonable amount of time to perform the repair. Ocana is distinguishable on its facts because in this case, Rastaedt's warranty actually states: "A reasonable time should be allowed after taking the car to the Mercedes-Benz Center for performance of the repair." As was held in Ocana, "[u]nder this state's law, there can be no cause of action for breach of an express limited warranty unless the consumer can allege and prove that the manufacturer did not comply with the limited express warranty's terms." Here, Rastaedt alleged in her complaint that she provided Mercedes a reasonable time for performance of the repair, and has thus sufficiently pled breach of the warranty pursuant to the terms of her warranty.
Further, Rastaedt relies on section 2310 of the MMWA, entitled "Remedies in consumer disputes," which was not at issue in Ocana. Below and on appeal, Rastaedt has relied on section 2310(d) and (e) of the MMWA, instead of section 2304, to support her argument that Mercedes was required, under the limited warranty, to correct the defects if given a reasonable opportunity to do so, and that Mercedes' failure to do so amounted to a violation of the MMWA. Section 2310(d) provides:
The Act defines "written warranty" as follows:
15 U.S.C. § 2301(6). Subsection 2310(a)(3) provides that warrantors may establish an informal dispute settlement procedure. 15 U.S.C. § 2310(a)(3). Subsection (e), entitled "Class actions; conditions; procedures applicable," establishes, as a precondition to suit, that an individual must give the warrantor reasonable opportunity to cure the alleged defect. 15 U.S.C. § 2310(e).
Rastaedt's complaint alleged, in pertinent part, "As a direct and proximate result of Manufacturer's failure to comply with its written warranty, Plaintiff has suffered damages and, in accordance with 15 U.S.C. § 2310(d)(1), Plaintiff is entitled to bring suit for damages and other legal and equitable relief." In its motion for judgment on the pleadings, Mercedes relied solely on the Ocana decision and its holding that the reasonable period of time requirement in section 2304 does not apply to limited warranties. However, Mercedes and the trial court overlooked Rastaedt's reliance on section 2310(d)(1), which as this court held in Rentas v. Daimlerchrysler Corp., 936 So.2d 747, 750 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006), creates a cause of action for breach of a written warranty. The warranty in Rentas was a limited manufacturer's warranty similar to the warranty at issue here. Id.
Further, the trial court overlooked that Rastaedt also relied on the exact language of her own limited warranty. Thus, the trial court was incorrect in that Rastaedt was attempting to engraft a portion of section 2304 (which deals only with full warranties) onto this claim which is brought under section 2310 (limited warranties). Rastaedt cited the exact language and requirements of her express limited warranty, which incorporates a reasonableness requirement.
Reversed and Remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
HAZOURI and CIKLIN, JJ., concur.
