quote:
Originally posted by Gene K:
quote:
Originally posted by ekpolk:
They still have to prove that the improper oil caused the defect the owner is claiming under warranty.
Actually they can just refuse to pay for the repair and then it is up to you or your attorney to take them to court and force them to prove the product in question is responsible.
In which case a reputable oil company such as Amsoil or Redline should provide you with expert witnesses and documentation to help refute their claims. Dont know that they actually would though.
Of course the question here is not what can they do but what have they done.
I personally do not know of any cases where engine repairs have been declined because of oil specification or certification.
However I would be pretty leary of going outside specification with a manufacture with known problems with their OCI + Oil Quality ie Toyota and Mercedes Benz. I suspect if they saw any signs of lubrication failure on the analysis and the oil did not meet their requirements to the letter you might have a problem.
I do know of one case in the early eighties where a engine warranty was declined on a 2.2L Mopar because of the oil filter used. The claim was its oversized capacity without a ABDV increased the time to get oil to the top-end and contributed to Camshaft Failure. However we all know that those early 2.2L Mopars had cam problems regardless and the oil system was eventually modified to increase cam oiling during start-up.
Gene
True, but. . . Sure, such a case will always start with a denial, and yes, it's up to the owner to take the case to court, but at that point, it becomes a departure from the normal way things work. Usually, a party making a claim (plaintiff) has the burden to come forward and prove up his claims. The defendant can then: 1)argue that the plaintiff has failed to meet his burden, 2) prove up one or more defenses, or both.
In a MM warranty case, yes, the owner will have to take the case to court, but then, the defendant-car company will, by law, have to "assume" the burden of proving that the improper oil (or whatever other reason they're offering) caused the harm, versus the harm being a covered defect. If the defendant puts on some evidence to this effect, then the owner could respond with his own evidence to the contrary, if he has any (this is where the Amsoil-provided expert would come into play).
So yes, the car mfr starts the fight by denying the claim, and then it's up to the owner to take it to court. But the mfr does still have to prove its denial to get away with it.
Legal niceties aside, I'd be the first to advise a client to stay conservative and within the mfrs recommendations during wty, as avoiding such a fight in the first place is far better then fighting the fight, even if you ultimately win.