Oil filter warranty and claim in the case of .....

[ABN_CBT_ENGR]

Man o man !! that cant be clearer there is so many way for a car manufacturer to get out of trouble that its not even funny.
In conclusion no matter what one can do, we are always screwed
Anyways thanks a millions for your time , it was a really interesting response to my question.

Lets add a degree of complexity (and cost)

Lets say your "expert" says it "is" a defect in the engine. ( it would have to be a defect otherwise the OEM wouldn't be liable in most cases regardless once it leaves their control)

You will have to show whats defective and how it killed the engine- then you have to show it was somehow a defect in design, material or part.

That's very hard to do (and expensive)- then you have to provide all that data to them for their review and cross by their experts.

All of those billable hours keep on adding up.

Then, even if you win come the appeals.

Ask the McDonald's coffee woman the difference between what she was originally awarded versus what wound up in her pocket and you will get the idea.

 

[DuckRyder]

And if you are not in the US you have no protection from MM warranty act whatsoever.

there is a report here of denied warranty on a sprinter van due to a filter. I don’t recall if it was a misapplication or aftermarket / secondary distribution stream or both.

 

[bulwnkl]

ABN_CBT_ENGR, the processes and burdens of proof you assert in this thread directly conflict with the controlling federal statute. Too, design flaws are rarely or never warranty claims. Only materials and workmanship are covered by any of the major manufacturers’ warranties. Can you please cite case law which supports your claim that the burden of proof is on the end user to prove the negative that their parts did _not_ cause the failure, or that a manufacturer material or workmanship issue caused the problem?

I am aware of a member or two here having taken on a major Japanese manufacturer in court and winning. They did not have to prove that what they did did _not_ cause the failure(s).

 

[demarpaint]

If I was concerned about such a problem I'd just pay an extra couple dollars for the manufacturers filter. I've used all kinds of filter over the 45 years and approximately 1 million miles I've driven and never had a filter failure that I know of. If I did have a failure of any kind it didn't do any significant damage.

Same here. FTR the OE filters as far as I know are usually not made by the car mfg., so I think some people worry too much.

 

[ABN_CBT_ENGR]

the processes and burdens of proof you assert in this thread directly conflict with the controlling federal statute.

No they do not. I invite you to post whatever statute you believe applies and I will explain it to you.

Can you please cite case law which supports your claim that the burden of proof is on the end user to prove the negative that their parts did _not_ cause the failure, or that a manufacturer material or workmanship issue caused the problem?

Yes, its called the presumption of innocence and where the burden of proof lies in the US justice system. Please cite case law ( with docket number) that says otherwise.

I am aware of a member or two here having taken on a major Japanese manufacturer in court and winning. They did not have to prove that what they did did _not_ cause the failure(s).

Good, lets have the case number and review what the exact details and specifics were. I know all about "stories" about "people" who did "stuff". Lets look at the specific cases you reference and see what the facts and relevant details and scenario actually were.

 

[bullwinkle]

Really, the only widespread oil filter causing blown engines issue I remember is the infamous disintegrating old Fram PH filters in the Cummins 5.9s, plugging the piston cooling jets and melting pistons. If the Mitsubishi filter isn’t ridiculously expensive, use it until the warranty expires. Brand name filter companies will stand behind you (Fram, Wix, even Purolator somewhat)-but God preserve you if a no-name Chinese filter grenades and kills your engine!

 

[bulwnkl]

You mean "fault?"

If it was on the consumer to _prove_ that manufacturer materials or workmanship were at fault for a given failure, then all warranty claims would require legal action to initiate.

 

[ABN_CBT_ENGR]

You mean "fault?"

If it was on the consumer to _prove_ that manufacturer materials or workmanship were at fault for a given failure, then all warranty claims would require legal action to initiate.

No, I said what I meant and meant what I said and it is correct.

This bolded statement is totally wrong at every point because the subject cannot be addressed in a blanket because there are many types of warranties and various conditions with each one having degrees of variance.

If you can read IN CONTEXT ( try that) the HYPOTHETICAL scenario I qualified WAS "past the point of all discussion" so litigation was the only recourse which qualified everything I said.

If it gets past the stage of discussion/mediation then yes the burden is on the claimant ( customer usually) to prove the defect is in fact so- to use your own words- "If it was on the manufacturer to "prove" it was not a defect every time something failed then all manufacturers would be out of business because frivolous lawsuits would be the #1 income generator for the masses".

Now where are those cases and statutes you were referencing?

 

[rubberchicken]

I'll give you real life real world experience from one who does global warranty issues and expert witness testimonies in failures.

Bottom line is, in every adverse scenario, YOU will be the claimant/plaintiff and the burden of proof is on you ( and expense)

This seems contrary to the extensive research I have done on US law, specific the Magnuson-Moss Act. My understanding is that the burden of proof is on the manufacturer. I can see the argument that they already have their experts (dealer staff) make that determination, and now the consumer has to refute it in a convincing manner. Also, the law only applies in the USA- original poster is in Canada, and the laws are not uniform across the world.

 

[rubberchicken]

If a consumer finds themselves fighting a battle in the US over aftermarket filters, one place to turn is the filter manufacturer. If you call their main line, they usually have an option for "warranty claims". Discuss it with them for advice on how to proceed. Also, one can make the argument that your aftermarket filter could potentially be made by the same contract manufacturer as the factory supplied filter. And the factory changes suppliers on occasion.

 

[ABN_CBT_ENGR]

This seems contrary to the extensive research I have done on US law, specific the Magnuson-Moss Act.

No and I don't see how you came to that conclusion, the MM doesn't require a warranty on anything and you also need to research cases which further define it.

it further defines that adjective in front of the term warranty ( express, implied, merchantability etc.)

Nowhere does it elevate or grant special status to a claimant where any said claim is "presumed true and correct" thus putting an OEM on the defense from the outset- it actually DOES state that it doesn't apply if its shown the 'alleged damage' occurred from something the customer did, unreasonable use etc. ( as I said, the burden is first on the claimant to show the "alleged defect" is in fact a warranty issue rather than wear/tear/abuse etc.)

Also, the law only applies in the USA- original poster is in Canada, and the laws are not uniform across the world.

I caught that, notice the very big US I qualified my statements on up thread as did others. The individual will need to go to the authority having jurisdiction for the specifics. It is also worthy to note that the MM itself gives way to state/local laws too ( as stated earlier)

Hope that helped your research some.

 

[WylieCoyote]

This is why I stick to OEM oil filters until the warranty's up. A broken engine filled with API certified oil, and a Motorcraft / Delco filter screwed to it won't lead to a conversation with an attorney.

 

[ZeeOSix]

This seems contrary to the extensive research I have done on US law, specific the Magnuson-Moss Act.

See attached PDF. I've also seen information that said the vehicle manufacturer could deny warranty and make the owner go after the aftermarket filter maker to cover any damage caused by the aftermarket oil filter. Which makes sense because why should a car manufacture fix damaged caused by someone else's product?

 

[rubberchicken]

I have watched most of Lehto's Law videos, and find them very informative. But I do not think he has addressed this issue specifically- I really wish he would. Lets write him and ask him to address it !

 

[rubberchicken]

No and I don't see how you came to that conclusion, the MM doesn't require a warranty on anything and you also need to research cases which further define it.

it further defines that adjective in front of the term warranty ( express, implied, merchantability etc.)

Nowhere does it elevate or grant special status to a claimant where any said claim is "presumed true and correct" thus putting an OEM on the defense from the outset- it actually DOES state that it doesn't apply if its shown the 'alleged damage' occurred from something the customer did, unreasonable use etc. ( as I said, the burden is first on the claimant to show the "alleged defect" is in fact a warranty issue rather than wear/tear/abuse etc.)



I caught that, notice the very big US I qualified my statements on up thread as did others. The individual will need to go to the authority having jurisdiction for the specifics. It is also worthy to note that the MM itself gives way to state/local laws too ( as stated earlier)

Hope that helped your research some.

I agree with you- the MM is supposed to clarify and regulate what a warranty means and its terms, but not if you even get a warranty. A lot of people forget that it was claimed abuse by major computer manufacturers in the 1960's and 70's that motivated the sponsors.

 

[DuckRyder]

The fact is that the Federal Government itself has required a manufacturer to void a warranty under conditions that would appear to violate the terms of MM.

Back when it happened I was wondering if anyone was going to push the issue and sue the manufacturer and the federal government ... but as far as I know no one has. It will probably take a group of people to interest some large firm in a class action to do anything and we know who the winner in that will be.

Those here claiming that MM is some kind of magical shield against a manufacturer denying a warranty claim are fooling them selves. All the manufacturer has to say is "It caused (the component) to operative outside of the designed envelope"... once they deny it it'll take dueling experts and cubic dollars to reverse it. If the warranty is of any value to you, I don't understand why someone would give the manufacturer such an easy out unless the factory filter is egregiously bad.

Then again, I don't understand why people buy an expensive piece of equipment (that they ave presumably decided on some level is the "best" choice) then penny pinch when it needs a replacement part or service.

Yes if the filter is the cause the filter manufacturer may take care of you, but there will be finger pointing...

Yes the chances of it going sideways are slim to none, but if it does go sideways its going to be an expensive lesson.

 

[KGMtech]

Nissan / Infiniti states in their owners manual:
"Your new INFINITI vehicle is equipped with a high-quality Genuine NISSAN oil filter. When replacing, use a Genuine NISSAN oil filter or its equivalent"

Not saying Nissan is identical to Mitsu, but the above is pretty common OEM wording, so if you select a proper EQUIVALENT then you can sleep and enjoy the sugar pie dreams...

 

[GMBoy]

Use the filter of your choice. It only takes a few minutes to put on an OEM filter before taking the car in if you had any issues.....just saying

 

[NormanBuntz]

With your powertrain warranty, why not play it safe and buy your filters from the Mitsu dealer? The price difference is peanuts over 10 years.

 

[wpod]

The filter etc. causing the damage will be obvious, A major brand is the best at covering the damage.