Ford V10motor locked up

[XS650]

Nice post Win.

My SWAG is that if the case is semi-legitimate and not judged as frivilous on the part of the litigant and not judged as overtly crooked on the part of the defendant, that the part requiring the losing poarty to pay costs wouldn't be enforced, unless one party was related to the judge

That said, her lawyer costs would easily exceed the $2k she paid to get her engine replaced.

Kathy got a good deal, about the best she could hope for when Ford didn't come through for her.

Let this be a lesson for the good brave folk that say "screw the manufacturer's service requirements." Reality says that it can hurt you, and no amount of posturing by anyone without a dog in the fight will change that.

Whether you are in the right or in the wrong, anytime you go to court it's a big crap shoot and you stand a real chance of losing your @ss, even if you are in the right.

 

[rgl]

Regarding costs/attorney fees:

I don't know about other states, but here in Wisconsin state court reasonable costs are commonly awarded to the prevailing party. Acceptable costs are things like filing fees, transcript & stenographer fees, etc. Attorney fees are not treated as costs, and are generally (unless dictated by statute) not awarded unless the losing party was pretty egregious. You generally ask for costs and attorneys fees separately at the end of the pleadings.

 

[Win]

The act is at 15 U.S.C. section 2301 et. seq.

I just skimmed it (emphasis on skimmed - I didn't spend more than a few minutes on a lengthy enactment - and my version is only current through Summer 2003; the act may have changed in the interim ) - but nothing really jumped out at me as shifting the burden of proof from the plaintiff. Maybe there is something in the CFR's further implementing the act; I didn't take the time to look there.

Looks like it takes $50K in controversy to get U.S. District Court jurisdiction, even then nothing to indicate that the substantive law of the forum state would not be applicable on a claim for breach of express warranty.

If you have a specific cite to whatever shifts the burden of proof I would sure like to have it - never know when a paying customer might come in and I might need it!

Also to anyone still interested in this, there may be remedies under a particular state's Uniform Commercial Code, and sometimes there are state commissions (licensing agencies) that may have promulgated rules on these consumer disputes.

 

[Win]

quote:

---

Originally posted by ekpolk:
Win:

I'd just take future cases to Federal court and enjoy the ride on the rocket docket.

---

It's for sure a rocket ride around here compared to state court! Generally, a scheduling Order with a trial setting comes out the same day the issues are joined!

 

[ekpolk]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Win:
{snip}
Looks like it takes $50K in controversy to get U.S. District Court jurisdiction, even then nothing to indicate that the substantive law of the forum state would not be applicable on a claim for breach of express warranty.

If you have a specific cite to whatever shifts the burden of proof I would sure like to have it - never know when a paying customer might come in and I might need it!

Also to anyone still interested in this, there may be remedies under a particular state's Uniform Commercial Code, and sometimes there are state commissions (licensing agencies) that may have promulgated rules on these consumer disputes.

---

I'm at a bit of a disadvantage since after my recall, I suspended my Westlaw account. I've got notes on it stored away somewhere on a CD. I'll unearth them and get back. Burden shifting is an odd bird in the law, but it does happen. I've tried one burden shifted case, and worked the appeal on another, but neither involved the MMWA (they were standard state court tort actions in which the defense had negligently or deliberately destroyed important evidence). Again, I'll look for my notes and cites.

The $50k "amount in controversy" applies only in cases brought to Federal Court under the "diversity jurisdiction" statute (and I believe the amount is now up to $75k. Cases bases upon a "federal question" or subject matter are not limited by the monetary threshold. I'm sure the judges would love it if the limit applied in ALL cases -- they could accelerate the rocket docket beyond light speed. . .

Excellent point about state laws too. The Florida Lemon Law is a pretty toothy creature, when applied properly. Although I've only handled a few "bad car" cases (either as favors to friends or clients), the sense I got was that this is what really carries the day here.

 

[Amkeer]

Good writes Ek!

I wish I had known you about 4 years ago! It would have saved me over 100 hours research at the law library.

With our case I immediately brought forward the MMWA. We won on Breach of Warranty, Fraud, etc..We collected for transcripter, witness fees, filing fees, photographer and the cost to bring defective warranteed items to oem standards. The judge would not allow me to collect triple (treble) damages after I motioned to amend final judgement. The judge basis on triple damages is he could not allow unrepresented plaintiff to collect damages even though the law states I could collect damages. I did not specify triple damages in the initial claim. It took the judge 2 weeks to decide on the motion for triple damages. Once his decision was made the dealer sent me a check with interest within 2 days. Granted they never sent me a check when I won the case it was only after I did the motion and further shook them up. I then delayed cashing the check and contacted their Surety Bond company to place a claim against their bond which was coming up for renewal....After 2 more weeks of messing with them and their fraudulent activities I backed off and cashed the check. It was a 5 year old vehicle and this was a huge dealership with major pull in this area especially with the DMV.

 

[ekpolk]

Win:

I respectfully disagree. Obviously, in a straight up breach of contract case, the plaintiff bears the initial, primary burden of proof. Consumer automobile warranty cases are not straight up breach cases, they are hybrids, since they are governed by federal law too. A plaintiff in an automobile wty case who pleaded only a breach of a wty contract, without pleading the application of the federal Moss-Magnuson Act would be needlessly tying a hand behind his back. Also, if you decide to proceed under a standard, state law breach, you'd be constrained to use the standard instructions, also unfavorable, relative to Moss-Magnuson. Even if the case proceeds in state court, it is still a cause of action that's governed by federal law too, and I'd always plead that, and insist that the manufacturer bear its primary burden. If I had a judge who was inclined to proceed under standard procedures, I'd be carefully preserving the issue for appeal. Most importantly, if I had a state judge who thought this way in my locality, I'd just take future cases to Federal court and enjoy the ride on the rocket docket.

 

[crheinish]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cathy Covington:
THE RV IS FIXED!!!!!!!!!!!! Now I am just trying to scrape up the $2000 I have to pay! FORD NEVER HELPED ME! this wa all Roger Penske and the United auto Group. I have to say, that I don't know where ford is coming from. Now they are trying to sell Crown Victorias to the Arkansas Police that are the same car that anyone can buy. (articles at blueovalnews.com and at bannernews.net) So they've ripped off a schhol teacher, the police...who's next????? Are firetrucks made by Ford?????

this has really been a Murphy's Law year for us! Here's hoping that 2005 is better for us all!

---

Cathy, Thank You for sharing this experience with us. It is a shame what is occurring in our country. All companies care about is the bottom line. How did your daughter make out in the racing season? Best Wishes

 

[Uneasy Rider]

I've been following this thread & have to say that I side with Ford on this one. You just cant neglect an engine & cry warranty when something fails. Moral of this story.......CHANGE YOUR OIL WHEN RECOMMENDED!

 

[TN Tracker]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Uneasy Rider:
I've been following this thread & have to say that I side with Ford on this one. You just cant neglect an engine & cry warranty when something fails. Moral of this story.......CHANGE YOUR OIL WHEN RECOMMENDED!

---

I agree. I've followed this story here and other places where it has been posted, there are many, and although what I say won't be popular it's how I see it. This is not about a 4 cyl car loafing around. This is an RV that works hard to pull itself and a trailer around the country. Your V-10 was operating under extreme conditions and you readily admit that it was neglected because you didn't have the 15 minutes it would take to change the oil. You went more than double what the OCI should have been when towing a trailer. You get a new $10,000 engine for $2,000 and complain about that too. Since you didn't service the engine properly I'm sure the transmission has been neglected also, will you blame Ford when it goes belly-up? The truth is that if you had done the proper service you would have gotten a new engine from Ford, that is if the engine would have failed at all. Manufacturers give you plenty of warranty and maintenance information when you buy a new vehicle, read it and you will know what is needed to keep your warranty coverage. I exchanged one new vehicle (not a Ford) because it was a lemon but I kept meticulous maintenance records and repair documentation. When I showed the Regional Manager my documentation he told me to go pick a new car of the lot, it's not rocket science. Ford did not drop the ball, you did. You seem like a nice lady and I hope things go well with your new engine...change the oil

 

[Amkeer]

Actually the moral of the story is to avoid patronizing a company that has a bad reputation in dealing with consumers.

Don't think for one minute that what the dealer did is fair. They knew that it would be better to get the customer to bite at a dollar amount rather than lose in court. They strung these fine people out as long as possible knowing they would eventually cave.

If the oil tested wasn't bad and no sludge was evident then why did the motor die?

 

[crheinish]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amkeer:
Actually the moral of the story is to avoid patronizing a company that has a bad reputation in dealing with consumers.

Don't think for one minute that what the dealer did is fair. They knew that it would be better to get the customer to bite at a dollar amount rather than lose in court. They strung these fine people out as long as possible knowing they would eventually cave.

If the oil tested wasn't bad and no sludge was evident then why did the motor die?

---

I could not have said it better myself.

 

[TN Tracker]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amkeer:
Actually the moral of the story is to avoid patronizing a company that has a bad reputation in dealing with consumers.

Don't think for one minute that what the dealer did is fair. They knew that it would be better to get the customer to bite at a dollar amount rather than lose in court. They strung these fine people out as long as possible knowing they would eventually cave.

If the oil tested wasn't bad and no sludge was evident then why did the motor die?

---

I disagree, the UOA had nothing to do with it. You can see from my post count and the date I joined that I say very little here because I learn more by reading and soaking up the information. This is a subject that I have first-hand knowledge about, when you buy a new vehicle it is your responsibility to follow the manufacturers recommendations to keep your warranty in effect. I did and I got new car because of it. Ford did not replace the engine because they failed to keep up their end of the warranty. There is nobody to blame but them because the engine was not replaced under warranty. I'm not trying to be mean toward her, I'm just stating a fact that may help someone else down the road. I'm glad she got help replacing the engine. While your vehicle is under warranty follow the manufacturers recommendations for service and keep records of everything done to the vehicle. It worked for me.

It's ironic to me that on a site which is based on excellent car care most people are ignoring the fact that her RV was not serviced as it should have been. Let's say you were a used car dealer and sold someone a vehicle with a 1 year/12,000 mile warranty. At 7,000 miles the engine expires and the buyer returns to you for warranty work. They state that the oil has not been changed for 7,000 miles even though the manual clearly states to change it at 3,000 for severe service and the warranty clearly states that all appropriate service schedules must be followed to keep the warranty in effect. Would you pay to replace the engine? I doubt if anyone here would, I'm sorry but I wouldn't.

 

[Amkeer]

Tn,

Your missing the point so I will stop right there.

 

[medic]

The point of this story is that the dealership & ford supposedly ha bad customer service and left a customer hanging on a warrenty issue.

What I see - Ford supplied the customer with a limited warrenty. The customer went beyond the limitations of this warrenty, therefore requiring the customer proves that she wasn't at fault. It would've been so much easier to for the customer to follow the rule and make Ford prove that she was at fault. I also think she is very lucky to only have to pay $2000.

The point of this story - don't push the limits required by the warrenty if you plan on using it. Life is so much easier if you follow the rules.

 

[Gary Allan]

TN Tracker

Okay, TN, let's say I sell you a car ..and you don't change the oil on time ..and a piston destroys itself due to faulty timing causing detonation.

I'm off the hook, correct? Simply because you allowed me the convenience of an "out"??? Now just whittle that down to something appearing to be lubrication related ...but may not be.

This is the type of "out" that my wife uses in an argument. "Well ...well ..you leave shaving hairs in the sink ...I get to complain about other stuff!!" (apply spousal comments on bad habits of choice).

Grounding the football for yardage is a penalty.
Grounding the football for time is not.
(extend and manipulate the concept for those with the capacity to do so)

 

[Amkeer]

Alright let me make this as simple as humanly possible since some are having a problem grasping this.

The oil is claimed to have destroyed this engine correct? Yes. The consumer proved that the oil that was claimed to destroy this motor was still fit for service, correct? Yes. So what exactly are you claiming mr. manufacturer caused the failure of this SUPER HEAVY DUTY ENGINE? The oil change was longer than listed in the recommended interval section of the warranty. Ok, so you are saying that even though the oil was still fit for service based on a UOA by a professional lab that this perfectly good oil caused this heavy duty engine to self destruct, correct? Yes. So how did the good oil cause this motor that is still under warranty to fail? Ahhhhh, by extending the interval. Yes, but you claim the extension destroyed the engine even though expert testimony claims the oil was fine, right? So if the oil was fine then why else did you deny a warranty claim on an engine that is within the warranty limits? Because of neglect! What neglect? We have records here of numerous oil changes performed on this motor and a uoa performed as well as an inspection of the internals that proved the engine was clean. So you have seen this uoa and pictures of the internals would you say based on these pictures and this uoa that this motor is neglected? Ahhhh, it looks clean and the uoa seems alright, but the interval was extended and thats what are going by. Answer the question, was the motor neglected based on the uoa and internals? No! Thank you sir!

Below is an excerpt from the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act:

(c) Waiver of standards
The performance of the duties under subsection (a) of this section shall not be required of the warrantor if he can show that the defect, malfunction, or failure of any warranted consumer product to conform with a written warranty, was caused by damage (not resulting from defect or malfunction) while in the possession of the consumer, or unreasonable use (including failure to provide reasonable and necessary maintenance).
(d) Remedy without charge
For purposes of this section and of section 2302 (c) of this title, the term “without charge” means that the warrantor may not assess the consumer for any costs the warrantor or his representatives incur in connection with the required remedy of a warranted consumer product. An obligation under subsection (a)(1)(A) of this section to remedy without charge does not necessarily require the warrantor to compensate the consumer for incidental expenses; however, if any incidental expenses are incurred because the remedy is not made within a reasonable time or because the warrantor imposed an unreasonable duty upon the consumer as a condition of securing remedy, then the consumer shall be entitled to recover reasonable incidental expenses which are so incurred in any action against the warrantor.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode15/usc_sup_01_15_10_50.html

Since we already determined that the oil was not at fault and no neglect was proven based on expert testimoney it is therefore proven in fact that this motor was defective as of date of purchase. Since the vehicle was used in its intended purpose and maintenance was conducted within limitations set forth in the warranty that the manufacturer is still bound by the terms of the warranty and is obligated to repair said motor, replace at manufacturers cost.

 

[TN Tracker]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amkeer:
Alright let me make this as simple as humanly possible since some are having a problem grasping this...

---

There is no need to insult people's intelligence because they disagree with you.

 

[Gary Allan]

Relax, TN

As you can see ..it's been a Loooooooooooong topic and lotsa opinions thrown around.

Aside from the quoted preamble ..Amkeer gave an excellent point of view on this that was counter to yours. Very thorough and simply stated.

You're coming in well beyond when the train was moving, derailed, righted, and hit its destination.

Take this from someone who's often misunderstood ..keep saying to yourself...

It's only an electronic message board
It's only an electronic message board
It's only an electronic message board

 

[Amkeer]