2006AP1540 Tang v. C.A.R.S. Protection Plus, Inc.

Listen to this article

Even though a car warranty required the buyer to pay for “diagnosis” of a vehicle, it violated the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act for a warrantor to require the buyer to pay for determining the cause of the vehicle’s need for repair.

“We are satisfied that the trial court properly construed the term ‘diagnosis’ by contrasting the terms used in the medical context to how it is used here and by reasoning that a certain problem (lung cancer) is a diagnosis regardless of whether its cause is determined. The trial court also properly applied the term ‘diagnosis’ in the context in which it appears by considering the immediately following sentence-‘If it is determined that the covered component has failed and that the estimate for the repairs is agreed upon by our adjustor, an authorization number will be issued for the repair.’ In concluding that this sentence implies that the purpose of the required diagnosis is to determine whether a covered part failed, the trial court appropriately construed the meaning of the term diagnosis, together with the sentence that follows it, in a manner that avoids rendering either meaningless. See Journal/Sentinel, 155 Wis. 2d at 711 (A contract ‘should be given a reasonable meaning so that no part of the contract is surplusage.’).

“We also agree with the trial court’s explanation for why CARS’s interpretation would lead to an absurd result without any logical stopping point and that this absurdity is evidenced in the trial court’s comments about its questioning of Mason. See Jones, 88 Wis. 2d at 722 (‘The court cannot redraft the agreement, but must adopt that construction which will result in a reasonable, fair and just contract as opposed to one that is unusual or extraordinary.’). These conclusions are also supported by the fact that ambiguities must be construed against CARS because ‘[a]mbiguous wording will be construed against the drafter provided the contract is also construed as a whole.’ See id. We thus agree with the trial court that the more reasonable interpretation of the contract is that the contract gives CARS the right to require a car owner to pay for the investigation necessary to determine whether a covered part has failed, not what caused a given part to fail.”

Affirmed and remanded.

Recommended for publication in the official reports.

Dist. I, Milwaukee County, Franke, J., Curley, J.

Attorneys: For Appellant: Hughes, William E., III, Milwaukee; Kopp, Jennifer J., Milwaukee; Essig, Theresa E., Milwaukee; For Respondent: Foley, John D., Brookfield