Warranties


Monday, August 1st, 2011

Preserve Your Rights- Don’t Modify Your Vehicle

At Norman Taylor & Associates we see many cases where the vehicle owner’s modifications have created serious warranty problems after purchase. In some cases, modifications have disqualified consumers from seeking recourse under the California Lemon Law. There are three categories of modification that come immediately to mind.

  1. Lift kits installed on pickup trucks and 4-wheel drive vehicles
  2. Electrical/electronic modifications to entertainment/communication systems
  3. Trucks and cars with other than original tires and rims

Mechanical & Electrical Issues

Let’s talk about lifts on trucks first. Getting everything to align will take some skill and patience, and these are just the mechanical problems. Before you even consider these installations, think about how the all the suspension components fit together, even the slightest variance may cause serious damage and uneven wear. Some installations may include features that adjust the vehicle’s ride height electronically. These additions may conflict with electronic and or software components within the vehicle.

Let’s briefly discuss electronic media systems, these include sound systems, blue tooth systems, lighting systems, and much more. Inevitably the installer will need to power these components and often times this may include tying it in to the existing wiring system often referred to as “splicing.”  Some of the fellows who do this work are very skilled and you’d be hard put to tell the difference. Other third party installers may do very poor work. You cannot assume that the manufacturer always makes these modifications prior to the sale, and therefore you cannot assume you have any warranty coverage at all. When the dealer installs certain items, it is highly likely that  a third party to which they may sublet the vehicle to installs these items. Note: most dealerships use a variety of third party companies to perform tasks they have neither the time nor equipment to perform. Upholstery is a good example.

Finally, it is not uncommon at all for people buying a new car; especially those buying a sporty model to ask for fancy rims and wider ones perhaps. Some vehicles will come equipped with modified rims and tires. What the seller usually will not discuss is the potential risk to the basic alignment or unusual wear to the tires.  Some buyers make the purchase and these modifications are undetected.

For all of these examples, the sales person at the dealership very rarely volunteers anything about warranty coverage and how it is affected by modifications. If you do ask whether your warranty will be affected or voided, especially before you have purchased the vehicle, they will usually promise that there will be no affect whatsoever so they can close the deal. Seldom do they provide this promise in writing.

What Manufacturers Say

Here are a few relevant warranty statements from the 2011 Ford New Vehicle Limited Warranty. The section called “What is not covered under the New Vehicle Limited Warranty?’ states damage caused by alteration or modifications are not covered. Examples include the following:

  • alterations or modifications of the vehicle, including the body, chassis, or components, after the vehicle leaves the control of Ford Motor Company (emphasis added)
  • tampering with the vehicle, tampering with the emissions systems or with the other parts that affect these systems (for example, but not limited to exhaust and intake systems)
  • the installation or use of a non-Ford Motor Company part (emphasis added) other than a certified emissions part) or any part (Ford or non-Ford) designed for off-road use only installed after the vehicle leaves the control of Ford Motor Company, (emphasis added) if the installed part fails or causes a Ford part to fail. Examples include, but are not limited to lift kits, oversized tires, roll bars, cellular phones, alarm systems, (emphasis added) automatic starting systems and performance-enhancing powertrain components or software and performance ‘‘chips’’

This is just an example of a typical warranty exclusion. What’s the bottom line here? If your salesperson promises you that your modifications/upgrades are covered by warranty, realize that there is serious risk to you. Remember, most manufacturers’ warranties were carefully prepared; with regard to the California Lemon Law it may not matter what the dealer TELLS you, usually it’s what’s in writing that counts.

Bookmark and Share

Tags: , ,
Posted in California Lemon Law, Warranties | 1 Comment

Thursday, June 23rd, 2011

The Worst Repair Order Violations

Over the years at Norman Taylor & Associates, we have handled thousands of California Lemon Law cases. Some are so devious and underhanded we read them in amazement.  They are shown around the office followed by comments like, “Do you believe this? Do these people really not understand Bureau of Automotive Repair requirements for a properly documented repair order?”

Here’s what we saw. The vehicle is a 2010 Honda Civic. The owner took the vehicle to the dealership for extensive repairs. The following is the first repair order entry as written; we presume it was written by the service writer:

C/S the alignment is off. Also the brake pedal pulsates. The left rear shock is leaking. Vehicle will not start at times. Window rattles when half open. Test drove vehicle. Unable to duplicate problem at this time.

Do you see it? My first thought was, are these people serious? Don’t they know the difference between singular and plural? They are supposed to have read the B.A.R.’s (Bureau of Automotive Repair) Write it Right: A Guide for Automotive Repair Dealers which contains instructions on how to properly fill out a repair order. If you count the defects described in this travesty, you should get five; that’s five separate defects! It ain’t rocket science folks. Here’s what we get:

  1. The alignment is off
  2. The brake pedal pulsates
  3. The left rear shock is leaking
  4. Vehicle will not start at times
  5. The window rattles when half open

Do you count this as five separate defects? Anyone with good basic reading skills will see these as five separate defects. Note the last line in this particular defect report? Unable to duplicate the defect at this time. Which one? Are we crazy over here or did the folks at Honda simply assert, suggest or state outright that these five defects are really just once monster defect, and that they couldn’t duplicate them all at once? By the way, if you can find some connection between all five of these defects, you have skills we’ve never encountered.

Oh! You think this is over…sorry, it is not. Following the great catchall defect, which they said they could not duplicate, they then attempt to repair three of the five in the list, and ignore the other two.

Here are the next three entries in the repair order:

  1. C/S the driver’s side window rattling half way when cruising. Binding and Sticking: Front door power window regulator, left replace. Confirm rattle coming from the inside driver door. RR driver door panel found broken part at window regulator. Apply lube, silicone grease where appropriate. [We have italicized words which demonstrate that they duplicated the defect and took steps to repair it.]
  2. C/S the brake pedal pulsates when braking. Unable to duplicate the problem.
  3. C/S rear shocks leaking. Cause: premature wear and tear. Damper/shock absorber assembly, left rear replaced. Shock absorber alone on 06, includes alignment. [We have italicized words which demonstrate that they duplicated the defect and took steps to repair it.]

It would appear, for reasons one can barely guess, that the repair facility saw no reason to make repair attempts on problems they don’t want to bother with such as defect number one and defect number four above. What about the alignment problem? What about the no start condition? These are hardly insignificant, unless of course someone wanted them to seem insignificant.

Norman Taylor’s book, Lemon Law, The Standard Reference Guide describes this cunning technique in detail. We call it, “Slicing and Dicing the Defect”, although when the book was written such an astonishing example was not considered. Check out Chapter Seven, The Gauntlet.

Food for thought: Are the folks over there incompetent or was the repair order written this way with the intent to deceive? Hopefully it is neither one, but it wouldn’t surprise us if it was either one of the above or both.

Bookmark and Share

Tags: , ,
Posted in California Lemon Law, Warranties, lemon law | No Comments

Thursday, June 16th, 2011

Honda CBR 1000 Oil Consumption Class Action

In May 2010 a class action lawsuit was filed against American Honda Motor Company, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. It was filed on behalf of owners and former owners of 2008 and 2009 Honda CBR 1000 RR motorcycles. It is alleged in the law suit that the piston rings in these motorcycles are defective resulting in the engines burning excessive amounts of oil. This is the situation, the problem.

At Norman Taylor & Associates we take numerous motor cycle lemon law cases, including the CBR 1000 RR model. Class action lawsuits are hardly a new thing, but remember, it usually takes a large number of angry people to move forward with a Class Action. Also these people must provide evidence to the class action law firm that is totally convincing before they will proceed with such a suit.

When Honda responds to complaints of excessive oil consumption by asserting that “all motorcycles use more oil during the break-in period, or when an owner reports that their vehicle is using 1, 2 even three quarts of oil per 1,000 miles, and they say dismissively, this is not a problem, it’s time for somebody to take action.

When surveying the numerous blogs on the CBR 1000 RR oil consumption problem, many of the respondents noted how close they came to running out of oil entirely. For the record there are only three quarts of oil in the sump. It isn’t difficult to imagine the vehicle running out of oil, the engine seizing and depositing chunks of the bike and rider all over the freeway. For Honda through its agents the dealerships to casually assert that three quarts of oil consumption in a 1,000 miles is okay is worse than negligent.

For the reader’s information, if you are part of a class action law suit involving your motorcycle, this does not necessarily prevent you from taking advantage of the lemon law. You can always give us a call here at Norman Taylor & Associates if you have questions about motorcycle lemon law.

Honda’s most pervasive slogan is “The Power of Dreams.” As is often the case, there is a peculiar disconnect between what is stated in the various advertising media and the ability of the product to deliver what was promised.

We have written elsewhere on this site extensively about oil consumption. But as a reminder, here’s a viewpoint that is not mentioned on Honda’s self congratulatory media. All of this oil consumption about which they have no problem, and which is being blown into our atmosphere as pollution is hardly consistent with their written assertions. The title of one of their principal corporate web sites is, “Environmental Leadership.” Praising their vehicles for consuming and spattering the country side with 1, 2 even 3 quarts of oil every 1,000 miles hardly seems like environmental leadership, an even worse, when an owner objects, grinding that user into legal submission shows no level of responsibility at all.

This thought applies to all manufacturers of car and motorcycles who make similar oil consumption assertions: a little less arrogance and a little more responsibility, please.

Bookmark and Share

Tags: , , ,
Posted in California Lemon Law, Warranties, lemon law | No Comments

Tuesday, May 24th, 2011

2012 Honda Civic Recalled for Risk of Fuel Leak

It was recently reported that 1,156 2012 Honda Civics have been recalled due to a faulty o-ring that does not properly align with the fuel feed line. A fuel leak may result in a fire with an ignition source.

Honda will be informing buyers and the campaign to repair the defect will be in place by month’s end. Upon inspection, Honda will replace the fuel feed line if it is necessary to do so.

No crashes, or fires were reported and the recall was actually discovered by a factory employee who noticed a fuel smell on April 29, 2011. Honda subsequently informed regulators.

It is reported that 17% of the vehicles that have been affected by the defect were to be sold in the U.S. A majority of which have not yet been sold.

While recalls are common in the automotive industry, it is important to understand how a recall may affect a lemon law case. If consumers have given the manufacturer a reasonable opportunity to repair the defect, including a repair attempt as a result of a recall, and the defect still exists, the consumer may seek recourse under the California Lemon Law.

Bookmark and Share

Posted in California Lemon Law, Warranties, lemon law | No Comments

Monday, October 25th, 2010

Lemon Law News: VW Says, We Got Sludge, by Donald P. Ladew

What had been the other guy’s problem came home to roost in the author’s driveway the other day. I read this headline at Autoweek.com. “VW to cover maintenance costs for sludge damaged engines.” As you may have guessed, I am the owner of a VW Passat Wagon, and yes, it has the 1.8T Turbo engine. Unfortunately I cannot take advantage of this news. I can, however, comment about it.

Under the proposed settlement VW and Audi were compelled to pay maintenance costs in a class-action lawsuit over sludge-damaged engines in 479,768 VW and Audi models. According to court documents, the settlement affects 1997-2004 Audi A4 models and 1998-2004 VW Passat models with 1.8-liter turbocharged engines.

In 2002 I purchased a used 1998 VW Passat wagon. It had about 30K miles at the time. At 40K miles the engine coughed up a lung and stumbled to the side of the freeway wheezing like a dying carp. When I took it to the VW dealers, the technician poked around, advised the Service Writer who promptly told me it was my fault for using sub-standard oil. A year before my turbo died, I joined Norman Taylor and Associates. At the time, I was doing some research for Mr. Taylor’s second book Lemon Law The Standard Reference Guide.

I then suggested that the Service Writer was “less than accurate in his assessment of the defect”. If you read well between the lines, you probably understand I spoke firmly and colorfully allowing him to correctly understand what I thought of his assessment, personal habits and lineage. I also noted to him that I was an engineer and that I would be grateful if he would stop the baloney. While doing this I had my Lemon Law materials in my hand. The service writer, in an attempt to placate me, said he would discuss the situation with the Manager. This person came out to speak with me and said, because I was such a good customer—I wasn’t any such thing— he would speak to the District Representative from VW on my behalf. Ten minutes later he came out of his office all smiles to tell me that VW had agreed to replace my “sludged” turbo and pay all costs.

I knew from my California Lemon Law research that this is what we call a “Secret Warranty”. Better for VW to pay for the repairs than have me writing letters to NHTSA – The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. If enough people did this, a recall for the defective Turbos and associated parts might have been issued and then VW would have known serious financial pain.

What can we learn from this? Dealers aren’t always forthcoming about the real cause of defects. The threat of the Lemon Law isn’t always a deterrent to sleazy behavior from the manufacturers or dealerships. However, it does teach us to question what we are told and not hesitate to get advice from California lemon law attorney.

Bookmark and Share

Posted in California Lemon Law, Warranties | No Comments

Thursday, October 21st, 2010

Lemon Law: Stop Being so Darn Nice

Patience it is said is a virtue. However, there are limits. Exceeding these limits can definitely prevent the consumer from exercising their right under the California lemon law. Recently I analyzed a vehicle to see if it qualified for the Lemon Law and was astonished by the consumer’s patience. The following is a generic summary of the client’s defects and the dealership’s response.

  • 1st Repair Attempt: @ 3760 miles: When coming to a stop there is a delay before shifting then the transmission shifts. It feels like you have been rear ended. The dealer lists various tests and concludes: could not verify driver’s concern. In a subsequent discussion with the client, she said the Service Writer and others were condescending and told her perhaps she didn’t know how to drive a modern high performance vehicle.
  • 2nd Repair Attempt: @ 11,800 miles: When coming to a stop or slowing down in stop-and-go traffic there is a delay before shifting then the transmission kicks hard. No problem found.
  • 3rd Repair Attempt: @ 23,500 miles: When coming to a stop or slowing down there is a delay before shifting then the transmission delays and kicks hard. No problem found.
  • 4th Repair Attempt: @ 36,800 miles: When slowing down in freeway traffic there is a delay before shifting then the transmission kicks hard. The dealership stated they searched for a software update and wonder of wonders; they found one and installed new transmission control software. After each attempted repair they asserted that the vehicle was now operating as designed. With the defect still present at this point and in some cases sooner, the consumer should contact a California Lemon Law attorney.
  • 5th Repair Attempt: @ 41,200 miles: When coming to a stop or slowing down in stop-and-go traffic there is a delay before shifting then the transmission kicks hard. This time they said the transmission fluid was low and that they would replace it as a “Goodwill” gesture. Extraordinary kindness!
  • 6th Repair Attempt: @ 47,100 miles: the transmission seizes while parked at work and will not move from PARK to DRIVE. Now the dealership is compelled to actually perform repairs. They disassemble the transmission and replace the control unit. Before she leaves, the service writer asks, “Have you been driving this car very hard?”

This vehicle was taken in twice more for transmission defects before she finally called Norman Taylor & Associates for help. Her reasoning was that the dealership employees were willing to help. As noted the consumer could have made a case after the fourth repair at which time the mileage was still low. Here’s the bottom line. Enough is enough! Don’t wait! You gave the dealership all of the repair attempts they were entitled to under the law. If they cannot repair the car at that point, it’s time to seek recourse under the California lemon law.

Bookmark and Share

Tags: , ,
Posted in California Lemon Law, Warranties | No Comments

Friday, September 10th, 2010

California Lemon Law: Read the Manual, Please!

A recent study by Schrader, a company that creates tire pressure monitoring systems, showed that one in three people did not recognize the tire pressure warning light. Owning a vehicle also requires that consumers make themselves aware of how to operate the vehicle and recognize these warning indicators; information that is included in the Owner’s Manual.

At Norman Taylor and Associates we speak to many consumers who seek information regarding California Lemon Law and whether or not the law may apply to them. Part of the review process requires a first hand account from the consumer which describes the problems he or she is having with the vehicle; this includes information on which warning lights were triggered at the time the defect occurred. Sometimes warning lights are triggered that provide more information as to which systems require attention. Sometimes warning lights will not be activated at all; this does not necessarily mean that a defect is not present.

What can happen if a consumer does not read the Owner’s Manual? The dealer and the manufacturer may take advantage of the consumer’s lack of knowledge to deny various kinds of service and repairs. What the consumer does not know may potentially harm their ability to seek recourse under the California Lemon Law.

The manual has explicit instructions on types of maintenance and schedules. If a consumer decides to ignore maintenance and later experiences engine defects, for example, the dealer can and will say; “This is a non-warrantable repair because the lack of maintenance caused the oil to sludge which destroyed the engine.” It will be very difficult for the consumer to make a good case against their assertions. Good records of regularly scheduled maintenance will stop that foolishness quickly. Part of ownership is being aware of how to operate the vehicle, how to care for the vehicle, and what to do if anything should go wrong.

What should have been written on the front of the Owner’s Manual is, “Ignore the contents of this manual at your peril.” Knowing what’s in your Owner’s Manual is no guarantee that you will make a successful California Lemon Law case but it will prevent you from sabotaging yourself in pursuing a possible case.

Bookmark and Share

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in California Lemon Law, Warranties | No Comments

Thursday, September 9th, 2010

CA Lemon Law: The Extended Warranty

Here is a typical (unfortunately), bit of information offered by a potential CA Lemon Law client calling Norman Taylor & Associates to get help with his defective motor vehicle. When we asked about the date of the first repair attempt the date he gave was after the original warranty had expired: We told him this and he said, “Oh, no problem, I have an extended warranty.” Listen closely! Did you hear a sigh of disgust and disappointment from the interviewer? This is important; the disgust was not aimed at the caller. That would definitely be the wrong target.

Here’s why I am annoyed, ticked off, disgusted. You can’t purchase any instrument, guarantee, warranty, whatever that will extend the original warranty on a car or truck. Write that on the palm of your hand please. When your original warranty – usually 3 years, 36,000 miles; sometimes more – is done, that’s it there isn’t any more.

For the manufacturer or dealer or both to suggest that if you buy an extended warranty your original warranty is somehow made longer, is just so much horse hockey. Please don’t ask me to explain horse hockey. If it did extend your warranty, it would have a significant effect on your ability to access the provisions of the CA lemon law. No manufacturer will ever willingly do that.

There are exceptions; with Certified Pre-owned vehicles the manufacturer will often authorize additional warranty, sometimes as much as up to 100,000 miles; but this is rare. Also, when the manufacturer knows that there is a serious defect with a specific vehicle – BMW and the High Pressure Fuel Pump for example – they will increase the warranty of that specific part of the vehicle. But you cannot buy additional original warranty.

When you buy an extended warranty you are buying MAINTENANCE INSURANCE. That is correct. It’s insurance. Most of the time if it is applied to a repair, you will have to pay the deductible. It may be $50, $100 or more and the maintenance insurance pays for the rest. It’s not that it’s a bad thing as long as you understand exactly what it covers.

It is just like your regular insurance. It has nothing to do with the original warranty! That is why it fills me with disgust and other less charitable feelings toward manufacturers and dealers. It is an error (some might say a crime) of omission. It’s what they don’t tell you. The California Lemon Law covers a lot of ground but the defects must begin within the original warranty. If you bought an “extended warranty” thinking you have the same rights for remedies under the CA lemon law as you did with your original warranty, think again. If you are not sure, all us and we will go through the whole process together.

Bookmark and Share

Tags: , , ,
Posted in California Lemon Law, Warranties | No Comments

Friday, June 11th, 2010

Lemon Law and the May Tag Man

I note from a recent article that Maytag, the appliance people, are issuing a recall for some of its washing machines. It looks like the “Maytag Man” isn’t going to be able to lay around on his duff eating Twinkies, watching day-time soaps waiting for something to go wrong with their washing machines.

At Norman Taylor & Associates we wrote the book on Lemon law. Every day we see defective automobiles and trucks. Many of the manufactures are issuing recalls and TSB’s (Technical Service Bulletins) on a weekly basis. Here’s the connection. If you hear manufacturers of any mechanical or electro-mechanical device spouting on about how their products never have problems, please feel free to roll your eyes and do that, “cover your mouth and cough while mouthing &*&&^#!”

Manufacturing perfection isn’t in the cards, no matter who the manufacturer is. As the British would say, “it just isn’t on.” Statistics, a branch of mathematics dealing with chance and probability, absolutely predicts that if you make enough of anything some of them will be defective. There is even a good chance that if you manufacture tens of thousands, even millions of the same thing there will be a disproportionate number of defective products.

High-volume manufacturing is what makes Lemon Law cases and gets the Maytag Man out there repairing washing machines and handling recalls. Sorry Mr. Maytag Man the vacation is over, you’ll have to tape your favorite episodes of the All My Children.

Bookmark and Share

Tags: , ,
Posted in California Lemon Law, Warranties, lemon law | No Comments

Friday, May 14th, 2010

BMW – Defective High Pressure Fuel Pumps – Has it Happened to You Yet?

If you own a 2007 through 2009 BMW 135iS, 335i/xi or 535i, with the N54 engine, there’s a good chance you’ve had trouble with the high pressure fuel pump. If you haven’t, knock on wood, I am glad you haven’t, but I sure wouldn’t want to take odds that it will never happen in your case.

After several calls from consumers complaining of the high pressure fuel pump, it was obvious to us that this was a widespread defect. As one who looks at hundreds, even thousands of repair orders every week, many of them for BMW automobiles, I have seen many instances of this defect and discussed them with the owners.

The following are some symptoms of BMW’s high pressure fuel pump problem:

• The vehicle hesitates when starting (engine not getting fuel properly)
• The vehicle loses power while driving
• The check engine light comes on
• The vehicle goes to limp mode

This is when the driver may experience his or her own “Fear Factor”. If this happens while you are on the freeway in the fast lane it can be pretty darn terrifying.

It really seems serious enough that a recall should have been issued. Hardly a week goes by that we don’t receive calls from BMW owners where one of the defects is with the high pressure fuel pump. The obvious reason is that BMW would have to install new fuel pumps on tens of thousands of vehicles. The cost to do this would be tens of millions of dollars.

BMW knows it’s bad, so much so they have issued a special limited extended warranty of 10 years or 120,000 miles on the fuel system whichever comes first. These pumps usually cost somewhere around $3,000.00. If as part of a repair you have to replace this component 3 times…well, the math is simple. I think, as they say, “the jury is still out’ on where this will go, either for the consumer or for BMW.

If you’re vehicle has been affected by this defect contact a qualified California Lemon Law attorney and learn how you can protect yourself.

Bookmark and Share

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in California Lemon Law, Engine Problems, Warranties, lemon law | 12 Comments

« Older Entries