Quote:
Originally Posted by extrashaky
That's not what OP said happened. He said they told him the work wasn't covered because there was metal in the oil. Unless he's misleading us, metal in the oil isn't sufficient evidence to conclude that he caused the problem and deny the warranty claim.
The dealer is not on the hook for the labor costs. In a warranty claim, the manufacturer pays the dealer for the work.
No, I don't make that assumption. The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act of 1975 does. It puts the burden of proof on the manufacturer to show that the user caused the issue, similar to a presumption of innocence. The assumption is that the failure was caused by a defect in materials or workmanship until the manufacturer can show otherwise.
What he needs to do is get a lawyer who has a little experience with warranty claims to advise him and tell him the best course of action to get the repair done. My guess is that a letter from an attorney expressing an intent to resolve the matter in court would suddenly make them more amenable to doing the work under warranty to "preserve customer goodwill" or something like that.
|
I'm not a lawyer; I agree, OP would likely benefit from professional counsel.
That said, Toyota offers a "limited" warranty on all of their products. One of the limitations is that failures due to neglect or mistreatment or normal wear and tear among other conditions are expressly not covered. Based on my own two personal experiences with warranty claims, one of which was with Toyota and the other with Honda, for both I was asked to sign an estimate indicating my agreement to pay for diagnostic services if indeed the problem was not found to be covered by the limited warranty. In both instances, in-depth diagnostic services were required as the problems were hidden from plain sight. In both of my cases, the issue was ultimately deemed covered under limited warranty and I owed no money to the dealership or to the manufacturer.
And yes, I know that the guarantor of the warranty is Toyota; but Toyota isn't going to eat the cost of a dealer's diagnostic efforts if the diagnosis leads to a conclusion that the limited warranty does not apply. That doesn't make sense. I did a quick search for case law on this particular issue but I came up empty. It has always seemed reasonable to me, though, that I be held responsible for problems that arise because of my own negligence, whether known or unknown. If the OP is confident this is a failure due to parts or workmanship, signing the estimate should be a no-brainer.
If the case law standard is indeed to have the manufacturer eat all diagnostic costs associated with all repairs, under warranty or not, then that's not a good policy IMO. The costs of new vehicles is already insanely high; forcing companies to cover diagnostic fees for every problem within the first 3-5 years of ownership seems like costs they'll pass on to the buyers. I, for one, don't want to pay for other people's negligence.