Yes. I think that is their prime motivation for not liking it. If that is offensive to lawyers, well... oops. I'm not backing out of anything, nor do I care if I hurt the feelings of all the lawyers out there. I'm sure they will get over it if/when I need one again and I offer to pay for their services. Until then I'll be quivering in fear hoping they don't come across this thread or you and decide not to help me because of this grave injustice I have committed.


LMGTFY...

 

Prove it to who? The consumer? Usually the dealer just informs you that the warranty work was denies because x,y,z. They are not going to show you all the reasons/evidence that led them to that decision, unless compelled to by discovery.

I already said that if its in court, they will likely have data that supports their decision.

 

So do you have proof or not? I tried finding it, and nothing came up. By the sounds of it, you're talking about a contractual binding arbitration clause which is not the same thing as a legislatively mandatory binding arbitration.

 

That is EVENT data recording. IE, about 20-30 seconds prior to a car accident, data is saved. That will not tell the dealer you took the car to the track.

 

The form that is generally used is a LAW 553. It is used in all 50 states but obviously you want to look at the AL ARB version. A lot of dealers/banks/credit unions have their own arbitration agreement written on other forms expressly in their preferred language.

 

If it goes to Court, the judge or jury.

There is nothing, nothing, to stop a dealership from denying you legitimate warranty claims right now. You're not as scary in person as you may think . However, if they deny a legitimate claim, they know full well that they will lose - whether it's through the media or the Courts.

Now you're tossing out **** without knowing what it means. If they think they are in the right, there is no reason for a dealership/manufacturer to withhold evidence. None. That tactic is stupid. No rational person does that. If they think they're in the right, they'll gladly tell you why. Again, we're talking about the denial of legitimate work.

If they're staying tight lipped all the way to discovery or examination, that's a hint that something ****y is going on.

What data do you even think they'll have? If you're towing a trailer using a truck, and that trailer is within the weight restrictions, what data do you honestly think they're going to come up with show why they shouldn't cover a warranty claim for say a broken transfer case?

You're tossing bizarre arguments out there rather than just conceding that you misspoke. Amazing, but I suppose I should have seen it coming.

Edit: To be clear, if a dealership/manufacturer genuinely thought you had no case, they wouldn't play hard ball and refuse to disclose any and all information; they'd aggressively bring a summary dismissal motion against you, and if necessary, seek a provision sealing the records. They as **** wouldn't continue paying legal fees to their own lawyer to do nothing and obstruct the process. That is a tactic rich defendants use when they're hoping and praying a meritorious plaintiff will run out of cash.

 

well if it gets that far, you would hope they have evidence. Still it would have to be of the kind where you clearly violated an unambiguous term of the warranty. If it says no racing, but you attended a high performance drivers education course where laps where not timed then I would expect you would have a case.

 

OK, so again, do you have any information explaining the Alabama system? It seems odd to me that apparently the state has imposed a requirement on manufacturers to use binding arbitration yet there's no readily available information online explaining this system to the laypeople that rely on it for "fair" decisions.

 

So, how about them stamped steel control arms?

 

who knows, maybe they are just tossing a bone to the aftermarket community. Some low hanging fruit.

 

How did I misspeak? I have been talking about damage from racing/competition/misuse being expressly not being covered in the warranty. I also theorized that most modern cars can 'tell' the dealer via a scan, things like max rpm, temps, etc.., that may form the basis of their decision not to cover the work under warranty.

I have never been talking about legitimate work, towing, arbitration, or any of the other tangents in these recent posts.

 

I'm questioning your reading comprehension, man.

This is the post, by you, that started this:

Wherein you tried to claim that a legitimate truck warranty claim would be denied by characterizing the use as "improper use".

You then rambled on for several pages, throwing out the basic **** you were taught on your way to your J.D., which seemingly ignored the practical realities of litigation.

Now we're here, where it has been established that you were talking about your butt. I repeatedly said "legitimate work" so perhaps you should firm up your reading on here.

 

Honda owners replaced their aluminum arms with....fancier aluminum arms LOL. I'm sure these will get swapped out for something from Skunk2, even if they aren't as good as stock.
​

 

Amby, look man my position is simple. If a dealer/manufacturer denies warranty work because they say you raced/tracked/misused the car. Then they likely have some data which supports their decision, and hiring a lawyer is probably not going to win the day for you.

I also suspect that dealers can pull a whole host of diagnostic data from the car, to include max rpm, rpm duration, etc..

 

And my position is simple - you're wrong, and talking out your butt. There's nothing stopping a dealership from simply denying legitimate claims as is, except for the "risk" that they will be sued and lose.

Your position is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of contract law, as shown by your incorrect posts on the subject, and a desire to rely on speculation that dealerships will have "data" on their side.