Warranty Issues
Thread Starter
|
Junior Member
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Warranty Issues
I am interested in hearing from people who have had a warranty claim denied because of modifications to their car. I am familiar with the Moss Magnusson Act and I understand that in theory the burden of proof is on the manufacturer. But, aside from speculation abut what mods might result in warranty issues, I would like to know what actual experiences people have had where modifications have resulted in denying claims. And, how often is the dealer/manufacturers’ decision ever challenged? Who has had their warranty repairs denied or who have challenged their dealers and litigated the issue?
Junior Member
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Actually...
....having read the act myself on several occasions and having just reviewed it again prior to writing this post, I can assure you that the act contains no provisions pertaining to modifications of a warrented item, nor does it contain any provision discussing what a warrantor must prove if a warranted item is modified. Here is the text of the act, and here is a page explaining the act at the Federal Trade Commission:
The law was basically intended to force manufacturers to provide clear explanations of the terms and conditions of the warranty:
This stuff about the auto manufacturers being forced to honor warranties no matter what is done to a vehicle is basically a myth that's been propagated by people who sell performance modifications that can, and do, void warranties. Stop and think: is it plausible that Congress, our Congress, would pass a law that basically says that no matter what you do to a vehicle, the manufacturer has to warrant it? Not gonna happen.
The portion of the act to which the aftermarket parts vendors typically refer deals with "tie-in provisions", which are meant to prevent manufacturers from forcing you to use exclusively their parts or products; for example, Volvo can not condition the warranty on using exclusively their motor oil, but they can condition it on you using oil that meets certain minimum standards. It certainly says nothing about any aftermarket modifications.
Lastly, it states that the manufacturer is free to include limitations and exceptions in their warranty, so for example a manufacturer can refuse to honor a warranty for a car with "aftermarket modifications", which most manufacturers do these days.
Caveat emptor.
The law was basically intended to force manufacturers to provide clear explanations of the terms and conditions of the warranty:
The first federal statute to address the law of warranty. The act (15 U.S.C.A. § 2301 et seq.) mandates that a written warranty on any consumer product that costs more than $5 must completely and conspicuously disclose, in easily understood words, the terms and conditions of the warranty. A warranty may guarantee several things, such as that the item will perform in a certain way or that the manufacturer will repair or replace the item if it is defective.
The Magnuson-Moss Warranty-Federal Trade Commission Improvement Act was sponsored by Senators Warren G. Magnuson and Frank E. Moss. Congress passed the act in 1975. Its purpose was to improve the information available to consumers, prevent deception, and improve competition in the marketing of consumer products, which are defined as property distributed in commerce and actually used for personal, family, or household purposes. The act provides a federal cause of action for consumers who experience problems with warranted durable goods. If a plaintiff prevails against a seller in a lawsuit brought under the act, the plaintiff is entitled to recover all litigation expenses, including attorney's fees based on actual time expended, as determined by the court.
The Act does not require that manufacturers or sellers of consumer products provide written warranties. Instead, the act requires that manufacturers and sellers who do warrant their products to clearly disclose the terms of the warranty so that the consumer understands his or her rights under the warranty.
In addition, according to the act, a written warranty on a consumer product that costs more than $10 must be clearly labeled as "full" or "limited." A full warranty means that whoever promises to fix the item must do so in cases of defect or where the item does not conform to the warranty. This action must be done within a reasonable time and without charge. A limited warranty can contain reasonable restrictions regarding the responsibilities of the manufacturer or seller for the repair or replacement of the item.
The Magnuson-Moss Warranty-Federal Trade Commission Improvement Act was sponsored by Senators Warren G. Magnuson and Frank E. Moss. Congress passed the act in 1975. Its purpose was to improve the information available to consumers, prevent deception, and improve competition in the marketing of consumer products, which are defined as property distributed in commerce and actually used for personal, family, or household purposes. The act provides a federal cause of action for consumers who experience problems with warranted durable goods. If a plaintiff prevails against a seller in a lawsuit brought under the act, the plaintiff is entitled to recover all litigation expenses, including attorney's fees based on actual time expended, as determined by the court.
The Act does not require that manufacturers or sellers of consumer products provide written warranties. Instead, the act requires that manufacturers and sellers who do warrant their products to clearly disclose the terms of the warranty so that the consumer understands his or her rights under the warranty.
In addition, according to the act, a written warranty on a consumer product that costs more than $10 must be clearly labeled as "full" or "limited." A full warranty means that whoever promises to fix the item must do so in cases of defect or where the item does not conform to the warranty. This action must be done within a reasonable time and without charge. A limited warranty can contain reasonable restrictions regarding the responsibilities of the manufacturer or seller for the repair or replacement of the item.
The portion of the act to which the aftermarket parts vendors typically refer deals with "tie-in provisions", which are meant to prevent manufacturers from forcing you to use exclusively their parts or products; for example, Volvo can not condition the warranty on using exclusively their motor oil, but they can condition it on you using oil that meets certain minimum standards. It certainly says nothing about any aftermarket modifications.
Lastly, it states that the manufacturer is free to include limitations and exceptions in their warranty, so for example a manufacturer can refuse to honor a warranty for a car with "aftermarket modifications", which most manufacturers do these days.
Caveat emptor.
Thread Starter
|
Junior Member
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Clarification
Thanks for the response. My post was not clear and that’s my fault. Q is not about the law - it’s about the real world experiences of people who have modded their cars (to whatever extent). You are right – the MMA does not require warranties – just says, essentially, if you do warrant a car, you have to honor it. There are different warranties for different things. Volvo warrants new cars for repairs required as a result of defects in workmanship or materials for (e.g.) 4 years or 50K miles. There is also a provision that explains what they do not warrant –including “failures resulting from misuse, abuse, negligence, overloading, modifications,” Etc. If the sunroof motor dies after a year and 10K, I suspect that Volvo would have a hard time reasonably refusing to repair the sunroof b/c the oil had not changed the oil for 10,000 miles (unless they can establish a causal connection). If a mod causes a problem, there’s no question that repair it is not (and should not be) covered under the warranty. However, what I am trying to learn is what actual experiences people have had where Volvo refuses to cover a repair under the warranty b/c of a modification. Do they deny all repairs once they see a K&N air filter is installed instead of stock? If so, is there a legitimate reason given? Or, have people discovered that modifications and non-Volvo parts are often overlooked if the cars under warranty and the problem is clearly not related to the mod.
Junior Member
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Ah, OK...
...well, can't help you there as this is my first Volvo, and I just started reading this forum recently. I've heard of other manufacturers (Audi, Mercedes, BMW) voiding warranties for performance mods (Audi, for example, refused to pay for blown turbos on B5 S4s w/aftermarket chips installed), and given that Volvos are turbo cars as well, there might be instances of this sort of thing.
Wrt the K&N, I don't think that, say, they could deny a sunroof repair if they see a K&N; otoh if the engine's internals failed due to grit, they'd have a pretty strong case. Iow, even though there is no requirement per se in MM for them to show cause, I would think that they probably would in order to discourage a lawsuit (and to enhance their chances of winning should there be one).
I do think that performance mods and/or abuse/negligence would be where you'd be likely to see the highest incidence of people being voided, as it's pretty easy to demonstrate, but I doubt they could simply pull all coverage for all parts, related or not, as a result of such mods...at least not if they hope to prevail in any resulting lawsuit. But if they can link the mod to the failure, or at least establish it as a likely cause, the owner is hosed imo.
Wrt the K&N, I don't think that, say, they could deny a sunroof repair if they see a K&N; otoh if the engine's internals failed due to grit, they'd have a pretty strong case. Iow, even though there is no requirement per se in MM for them to show cause, I would think that they probably would in order to discourage a lawsuit (and to enhance their chances of winning should there be one).
I do think that performance mods and/or abuse/negligence would be where you'd be likely to see the highest incidence of people being voided, as it's pretty easy to demonstrate, but I doubt they could simply pull all coverage for all parts, related or not, as a result of such mods...at least not if they hope to prevail in any resulting lawsuit. But if they can link the mod to the failure, or at least establish it as a likely cause, the owner is hosed imo.
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 403
Likes: 0
From:
Senior Member
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 242
Likes: 1
My mom has an '06 S60 that at the time had about 5,000 miles on it. My folks went to FL for the winter, and they came home in the spring to find rust buildup on the rotors which would shake the car like hell upon braking. This one Volvo dealer in Hyannis, MA wanted to replace all 4 sets of brakes at a cost of over $1,000. They would not cover the repairs under warranty. We took the car to an independent shop, and had all 4 rotors machined. It worked fine for a few months, but the vibration came back. Now that there is no visible rust, I'm wondering if another Volvo dealer might cover it.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
