Ranger v. Hyundai Motor America, Record 220058 (Va. Apr. 6, 2023)

In this short opinion, the Supreme Court decides that a manufacturer need not pay pre-litigation attorney fees to comply with the Lemon Law.

Facts. Nicholas Ranger bought a 2018 Hyundai that required repeated maintenance. He hired an attorney who wrote a demand letter to Hyundai under the Lemon Law to refund the purchase price as well as other damages, including attorney fees. Hyundai offered to repurchase the vehicle and pay some attorney fees, which it said complied with the Lemon Law, but Ranger rejected the offer because it did not reimburse his pre-litigation attorney fees. A circuit court agreed with Hyundai and entered summary judgment in its favor. Ranger appealed.

Issue. Whether a manufacturer must pay pre-litigation attorney fees to comply with the Lemon Law.

Holding. Nothing in the Lemon Law statute requires payment of pre-litigation attorney fees.

Notes. The Lemon Law was created by statute (Code § 58.1‑207.13) and requires manufacturers to accept return of a vehicle and refund “the full contract price, including all collateral charges [and] incidental damages.” The term “collateral charges” is defined to cover sales-related charges but omits any reference to attorney fees. Similarly, the definition of “incidental damages” does not include attorney fees.

The only dispute before the trial court was whether Hyundai was required to reimburse pre-litigation attorney fees. Since it was not, there was no genuine dispute of material fact and summary judgment was warranted.

Importantly, the Lemon Law does provide for recovery of attorney fees if the manufacturer does not comply with the Lemon Law and the consumer prevails in an action for damages. Here, however, Ranger did not prevail because Hyundai did everything the Lemon Law required it to do.

Read the Opinion.