park” remedy was applied, and that there are recurring situations in which the unreliable gear .selector continues to pose a serious risk of uncontrolled vehicle rolla-ways, with or without that fix. The defendant .also insists that the complaint, in “scattered eonclusory allegations, [alleges only] that the monostable shifter, itself, has some undefined design defect,” and that “it is axiomatic that express warranties covering defects in ‘material’ and ‘workmanship,’ like those at issue here, do not cover design defects.” The defendant correctly points out that it is widely held that a written express warranty covering defects in “materials” and “workmanship” does not extend to “design defects.” E.g., Daniel v. Ford Motor Co., 806 F.3d 1217, 1224 (9th Cir. 2015) (collecting cases) (<HOLDING>). However, notwithstanding its assessment of
recognizing ambiguous terms of plea agreement are construed against government holding ambiguities are strictly construed against the insurer as drafter holding an ambiguous contract will be construed against the party drafting the same holding  2513 to be jurisdictional and therefore must be strictly construed holding that warranty against defects in materials or workmanship could be read to exclude design defects but was ambiguous because it also referred separately to defects introduced during the design process and therefore must be construed against the drafter and held to embrace design defects as well as manufacturing defects