Litigation Byte

Ohio Court Navigates the Complexities of Lemon Law Claims

March 17, 2025

Lemon law claims present enormous issues of fact, involving questions such as “When does a vehicle issue rise to the level of a nonconformity?” “Should all repairs be considered under a claim if they are for different issues?” and “What if repairs are delayed for reasons outside of the defendant’s control?” A recent case faced each of these questions and demonstrated the difficulty of deciding a lemon law claim on summary judgment.

Background

Mr. Clayborne bought a new car with a warranty. About two months later, he found that he couldn’t unlock his car using either an app or the button on his key fob, and once he did get in the car, he could not start it until the problem resolved itself a few hours later. After taking his car to the dealership, the manufacturer was unable to replicate either the unlocking issue or the starting issue. Over the course of a year, Mr. Clayborne brought the car in for both the unlocking and startup issues another two times and one time for just the unlocking issue. The manufacturer was finally able to identify and resolve the underlying issue for both problems on the final visit. As a result of the recurring issue, Mr. Clayborne brought suit against the manufacturer, alleging claims under Ohio’s Lemon Law.

Court’s Analysis and Decision

As with the equivalent in many other states, Ohio’s Lemon Law is meant to protect consumers from new automobiles with chronic deficiencies that are not properly remedied under warranty. To incentivize manufacturers to comply, the law provides a hefty remedy to successful plaintiffs: a brand new car that is “acceptable to the consumer,” or damages equal to the full purchase price plus incidental damages.

The parties agreed that the car was covered by a warranty, so the only questions for the court were (1) whether the issues rose to the level of being a “nonconformity” under the warranty and (2) whether the issues persisted after a “reasonable number of repair attempts.”

Under Ohio law, a “nonconformity” includes “any defect or condition that [1] substantially impairs the use, value, or safety of a motor vehicle to the consumer and [2] does not conform to the express warranty of the manufacturer or distributor.” Ultimately, only the startup issue rose to this level, and unlocking issues were irrelevant for analyzing the Lemon Law claims.

The court then looked to the “Three-Unsuccessful-Repairs Rule.” Mr. Clayborne’s claims could proceed if the manufacturer had attempted repairs for “substantially the same nonconformity” three or more times within the same year and the issue continued to persist. Even though Mr. Clayborne had car issues five separate times within a year, the manufacturer had only addressed the startup issue three times. The manufacturer resolved the issue on the third attempt, so the appellate court affirmed that summary judgment was proper for the manufacturer on the Three-Unsuccessful-Repairs Rule.

The court then turned to the “30-Days-Out-of-Service Rule”, which states that a nonconformity has persisted past a reasonable number of repair attempts if the vehicle is out of service for repair “for a cumulative total of thirty or more calendar days” within the first year. Acknowledging the car was out of service for at least 31 days, the manufacturer argued the only reason the final repair took so long was because the necessary repair component was delayed as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, that argument ultimately worked against the manufacturer. Whether the delay was “due to” the pandemic was itself a question of fact. Because that issue should not be resolved on summary judgment, the court ultimately reversed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment on the lemon law claim—but specifically under the 30-Days-Out-of-Service Rule only.

Key Takeaway

Lemon law claims often present incredibly fact-specific issues, and Mr. Clayborne’s case demonstrates the difficulty of deciding such claims on summary judgment. Before the parties can even address whether a “reasonable” number of repair attempts occurred, the plaintiff will need to sufficiently establish which issues they face constitute nonconformities. If the car faced multiple issues, then which ones rose to the level of nonconformity, when each issue was specifically the subject of a repair, and how long the car undertook repairs all become vital questions.