The primary issue in this case concerns the interpretation of the New Jersey Motor Vehicle Warranty Act ("the Lemon Law"), N.J.S.A. 56:12-29 to ‑49. Among other things, the Lemon Law empowers courts to award consumers who timely report manufacturing defects "specific remedies where the uncorrected defect substantially impairs the use, value, or safety of the new motor vehicle." N.J.S.A. 56:12-29.
The manufacturing defect in this case involves a crack in a new SUV's front windshield that emerged two days after plaintiff acquired the car. The crack increased in size as time passed, purportedly hindering the driver's view and creating an alleged safety hazard. Plaintiff promptly reported the crack, a condition covered by the manufacturer's warranty, to the manufacturer and the dealership that sold him the vehicle. Despite plaintiff's repeated requests to have the windshield repaired or replaced, ten months passed before the defendant manufacturer did so, after plaintiff filed suit. In the meantime, plaintiff contends he restricted his use of the SUV, avoiding highways and driving it with trepidation at lower speeds as the crack worsened. The manufacturer refused to provide him with a loaner vehicle.
While the windshield was in its cracked condition, plaintiff filed suit against the manufacturer in the Law Division. He sought remedies under the Lemon Law and other statutes. The trial court granted summary judgment to the manufacturer, principally because by that time the manufacturer had replaced the windshield at no cost to plaintiff.
This court reverses the summary judgment dismissal of plaintiff's Lemon Law claim. Viewing the facts in a light most favorable to plaintiff, a jury could rationally conclude the crack in the front windshield was a "substantial impairment" that was not replaced in a "reasonable amount of time" and entitled plaintiff to recourse. In addition, New Jersey's motor vehicle code notably declares that motorists should not drive cars with "unduly fractured" windshields. N.J.S.A. 39:3-75. The Lemon Law claim is accordingly reinstated and the matter remanded for a jury trial.
In the unpublished portion of this opinion, the court addresses plaintiff's other claims, most of which survive summary judgment.