{"id":166,"date":"2026-01-16T12:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-01-16T12:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=166"},"modified":"2026-01-16T12:00:00","modified_gmt":"2026-01-16T12:00:00","slug":"towns-v-hyundai-b324360-song-beverly-standing-insurance-offset","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=166","title":{"rendered":"Towns v. Hyundai Motor America \u2014 Only the Buyer Has Song-Beverly Standing, but Insurance Payouts Don’t Reduce Restitution"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
Case<\/dt>\n
Towns v. Hyundai Motor America<\/dd>\n
Court<\/dt>\n
2nd District Court of Appeal, Division Four<\/dd>\n
Date Decided<\/dt>\n
2026-01-16<\/dd>\n
Docket No.<\/dt>\n
B324360<\/dd>\n
Status<\/dt>\n
Reported \/ Citable<\/dd>\n
Topics<\/dt>\n
Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, Lemon Law, Standing, Insurance Offset, Damages, Civil Code sections 1793.2, 1794<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<\/div>\n

Background<\/h2>\n

In October 2016, Daevieon Towns bought a new 2017 Hyundai Elantra for about $26,673. Over the next 19 months, the vehicle had to be returned to the dealer for repairs seven times. Towns or his wife Lashona Johnson asked Hyundai to buy back the car in March 2018. Two months later, the car was totaled in a hit-and-run, and Johnson’s auto insurer paid her $14,710.91 for it.<\/p>\n

Towns later sued Hyundai under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. Johnson was added as a plaintiff before trial despite not being on the purchase contract. Plaintiffs prevailed, but the trial court reduced the damages by the amount of the insurance payout and limited prejudgment interest. Plaintiffs appealed the reduction; Hyundai cross-appealed, challenging Johnson’s standing and the interest and costs awards.<\/p>\n

The Court’s Holding<\/h2>\n

The Court of Appeal published two of its key holdings. First, on standing, the court held that under Civil Code sections 1793.2 and 1794, only the actual ‘buyer’ of the consumer good has standing to bring a Song-Beverly claim. The Act protects the contracting purchaser, not other family members who used or drove the car. Johnson, who was not a buyer of the vehicle, lacked standing to sue under the Act. The court reversed the judgment to the extent it ran in Johnson’s favor.<\/p>\n

Second, on damages, the court held a third-party insurance payout received after the vehicle was wrecked does not reduce the restitution the manufacturer owes under the Act. Restitution under Song-Beverly is meant to put the buyer in the position he would have been in had the manufacturer fulfilled its repair-or-replace obligations. The fact that the buyer’s own auto insurer paid him for collision damage to the same vehicle is collateral and does not relieve the manufacturer of its statutory obligation. The court reversed the trial court’s reduction of damages by the insurance amount.<\/p>\n

In an unpublished portion of the opinion, the court also concluded that Song-Beverly obligations do not ‘arise from contract’ for purposes of Civil Code section 3288’s prejudgment-interest provision, which the trial court should reconsider on remand. The court remanded for the trial court to reconsider any award of costs in light of the modified judgment.<\/p>\n

Key Takeaways<\/h2>\n