Opinion
No. CV-205388.
Decided December 4, 1991.
Eugene A. Tonry, for plaintiff.
John D. Parker, for defendant Peugeot Motors of America, Inc.
Michael M. Boylan, for defendant Security Pacific Credit Corporation.
On July 19, 1990, plaintiff, David P. Potente, commenced this action against defendants Peugeot Motors of America, Inc. ("PMA") and Security Pacific Credit Corporation ("Security Pacific") in the Court of Common Pleas of Lorain County, Ohio. Pursuant to Civ.R. 3(C)(1), this case was transferred from Lorain County to this court.
This case arises out of a lease agreement that Potente entered into with Security Pacific on August 1, 1989 for a new 1989 Peugeot Model Vehicle 405MIL6 through PMA as dealer. A few months later, plaintiff experienced problems with the vehicle and initiated the instant action seeking relief under Ohio's "Lemon Law" and claiming that PMA participated in a deceptive sales practice. PMA has moved for partial summary judgment on plaintiff's Ohio Lemon Law claim, arguing that plaintiff, as lessee, has no standing to maintain an action under Ohio's Lemon Law. This court disagrees.
In support of its motion for partial summary judgment, PMA cites R.C. 1345.75(A), arguing that since Potente is a lessee and not a purchaser of the vehicle, he cannot maintain an action under Ohio's Lemon Law.
R.C. 1345.75(A) provides:
"Any purchaser of a new motor vehicle who suffers any loss due to nonconformity of the motor vehicle as a result of failure by the manufacturer, its agent, or its authorized dealer to comply with section 1345.72 of the Revised Code, may bring a civil action in a court of common pleas * * *." (Emphasis added.)
Although this court is aware that this issue has been addressed recently by Cheek v. Peugeot Motors of Am., Inc. (June 5, 1991), Cuyahoga C.P. No. CV-194998, unreported, this court does not believe that R.C. 1345.75(A) is dispositive on the issue of a lessee's standing to sue under Ohio's Lemon Law. It is a fundamental rule of statutory construction that sections in pari materia should be construed together. R.C. 1345.71(A) of the Lemon Law provides:
"`Consumer' means the purchaser, other than for purposes of resale, of a motor vehicle, any person to whom the motor vehicle is transferred during the duration of the express warranty that is applicable to the motor vehicle, and any other person who is entitled by the terms of the warranty to enforce the warranty." (Emphasis added.)
When plaintiff leased the 1989 Peugeot, he received the warranty, which was extended to plaintiff by a October 6, 1989 letter from PMA. Under the above section of the Lemon Law, a party who is entitled by the terms of the warranty to enforce the warranty is a consumer. Additionally, R.C. 1345.72(A) provides:
PMA wrote to plaintiff in a October 6, 1989 letter stating: "This letter will serve as confirmation that the above referenced Peugeot Protection Plan Vehicle Service agreement has been installed on your vehicle as a good will gesture by Peugeot Motors of America, Inc."
"If a new motor vehicle does not conform to any applicable express warranty and the consumer reports the nonconformity to the manufacturer, its agent, or its authorized dealer during the period of one year following the date of original delivery or during the first eighteen thousand miles of operation * * *, the manufacturer, its agent, or its authorized dealer shall make any repairs as are necessary to conform the vehicle to such express warranty * * *." (Emphasis added.)
Reading the statute as a whole, this court finds that Ohio's Lemon Law was adopted and designed to protect consumers from defective new vehicles and manufacturers who refuse to comply with the express terms of their warranties. It is from this perspective that this court rejects PMA's narrow reading of Ohio's Lemon Law. A lease agreement which extends the manufacturer's warranty and the ability to enforce the warranty to the lessee falls within the protective ambit of Ohio's Lemon Law. Since Potente was entitled to enforce the manufacturer's warranty, Potente is a "consumer" under the statute and can maintain an action under Ohio's Lemon Law.
Reporter's Note: A joint entry of dismissal and settlement was entered in this case on February 20, 1992.