Ford Must Pay Truck Cost, Penalty, Punitive Damages Over Engine

A nearly $230,000 verdict against Ford Motor Co. in a lawsuit over an allegedly defective pickup truck engine, including both a civil penalty and punitive damages, is proper because the two forms of punishment were for different conduct, a California appeals court ruled.

“Ford simply cannot escape liability for both awards by virtue of the fact that it engaged in a pattern or practice of deceitful misconduct throughout the course of the discrete events and conduct involved here,” Justice William J. Murray said Tuesday for the California Court of Appeal, Third District.

Shelby Anderson alleged that as an “outdoors kind of guy,” he was looking for a powerful, reliable, durable pickup truck in 2004 to pull boat, horse, and camping trailers for hunting, fishing, and other recreational trips, intending to continue using the truck into his retirement years. After researching his options and confirming capabilities with Ford salespeople, he purchased a new 2005 Ford Super Duty F-250 6.0 liter diesel pickup truck for $47,715.60, he said—the “most expensive thing” he’d ever bought, aside from his house.

Beginning in the second year he owned the truck, he allegedly experienced persistent problems with the Navistar International Corp. engine. Noises, shimmying, and power loss allegedly plagued the vehicle, especially when towing trailers, despite numerous visits to dealerships for repairs. Eventually, he bought a used pickup truck for his trips, and the Ford became a “driveway ornament.”

He and his wife sued Ford, asserting warranty-based claims under California’s Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, fraud claims, and Consumers Legal Remedies Act claims. The couple obtained compensatory damages equivalent to the cost of the truck, $47,715.60; a $30,000 civil penalty under Song-Beverly for failing to repair the truck or make restitution; and $150,000 in punitive damages. The total came to $227,715.60, and the trial court also awarded nearly $650,000 in attorneys’ fees.

The California Court of Appeal rejected Ford’s argument that awarding both a statutory penalty and punitive damages violated a “no-double-punitives rule.” The awards punished different conduct, it said.

“The punitive damages were based on conduct underlying the fraud/CLRA causes of action and took place before the sale,” Murray said. “The civil penalty was based on defendant’s post-sale failure to comply with its Song-Beverly Act obligations to replace the vehicle or make restitution when reasonable attempts to repair had failed,” he said.

Knight Law Group LLP, the Altman Law Group, and Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland LLP represented the plaintiffs. Greenberg Traurig LLP and Jones Day represented Ford.

Justices Jonathan K. Renner and Peter A. Krause also served on the panel.

The case is Anderson v. Ford Motor Co., 2022 BL 41645, Cal. Ct. App., 3d Dist., No. C089603, 2/8/22.