Lemon Law Lawyer Blog

A periodic feature of this blog is a summary of the current Monthly Defect Report from The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. This post will look at the Report for the month of July 2008.

NHTSA is still looking at the engine compartment fire concern in the 2007 Chrysler pacific with the 4.0Lengine. This Engineering Analysis was opened on February 21, 2008.

In March, NHTSA opened an Engineering Analysis on 2005-2006 F-250 and F-350 Super Duty 4.4 vehicles for a “violent front end oscillation.” Many lemon law lawyers report having several F-250 and F-350 cases with engine problems and it will be interesting to see what this EA reveals.

NHTSA is also opened an Engineering Analysis on 2006-2008 Hummer vehicles. The reason for this Engineering Analysis is to determine why there have been non-crash engine compartment fires. This engineering analysis was opened on June 12, 2008.

NHTSA also opened several Preliminary Evaluations. A Preliminary Evaluation is the precursor to the Engineering Analysis and determines whether an Engineering Analysis is begun. Most interesting is a Preliminary Evaluation that was opened on April 28, 2008 for an engine stalling complaint (due to fuel pump failure) in 2007 BMW 335i's. The 335i is a popular vehicle and it will be interesting to know what the Preliminary Evaluation turns up. NHTSA has also opened up a preliminary evaluation on the 2005-2006 Nissan Armada and Titan. This preliminary evaluation will explore engine compartment fires in the Armada and the Titan. It was opened on May 30, 2008.

For those of you who follow the motorhome industry, Country Coach, Inc., a designer and manufacturer of luxury motorhomes has had a Preliminary Evaluation opened on their 2007-2008 Affinity’s. Consumers have reported that the 2007-2008 Affinitiy’s can suffer from loss of power steering assist. This preliminary engineering evaluation was opened on July 24, 2008.

NHTSA also does something called a Recall Query known for short as an “RQ.” An RQ is where NHTSA monitors recalls to ensure that the scope, completion rate, and remedy are adequate. There are currently four Recall Queries open. The 1998-2003 Mercedes M Class power steering hose leak recall, the 2004 Ford Explorer and Mercury Mountaineer lift-gate glass hatch hinge failure, the 2005 - 2007 Bluebird Body Model 450 LXI WanderLodge, and the 2005 Dodge Durango fuel spit back during refueling.

Monthly Defect Investigation Reports are an important function of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. That they are so conveniently available on the Web is a boon to consumers.

Two days ago, I posted on the whether the consumer or the manufacturer has the right to choose the remedy under the California Lemon Law (answer: the consumer). But what happens after the manufacturer and the consumer agree “in principle” on the repurchase or replacement? The California Lemon Law states that the repurchase or replacement must happen “promptly.” The word “prompt” is not defined in the statute, but most people would agree that 30 days, i.e., one month, is fair. What often happens, however, is that the manufacturer agrees “in principle” to repurchase or replace the vehicle, but then takes a long time to work out the details of the amounts to be paid or the type of vehicle to be used for the replacement. As a legal matter, a manufacturer who drags its heels in completing an agreed upon repurchase or replacement, can be brought into court and sued over the delay. As a practical matter, the time required to prosecute such a lawsuit might take as long or longer than persistent phone calling and letter writing after the “agreement in principle” is reached. The bottom line? Nail down the exact terms of the repurchase/replacement as soon as you can. If the manufacturer is showing signs of waffling early on, consult with a qualified Lemon Law attorney for alternatives tailored to your specific situation.