Magnason-Moss Act and Amsoil

[CapriRacer]

Guys,

There seems to be a strong misconcpetion about the way these warranty claims actually work. Allow me to illustrate. (Sorry, MasterAcid, you were just convenient.)

Quote:

---

lets say joe sixpack..........how could the engine maker proove that joe sixpacks lack of oil changes were responsible for his engine destruction?.........[/quote}

The engine maker doesn't have to PROVE anything, he just says "warranty denied", and the next move is joe sixpack's. What usually happens after that is a lot of screaming and yelling from joe sixpack, but to what effect? Warranty still denied.

Call the BBB? They only DOCUMENT the dispute and verify that the engine maker recognizes that a complaint has been registered - and provided the engine maker responds to the BBB letter with a reason (and doesn't even have to be a good one), the next move is still joe sixpack's.

Attorney General? Same situation. They are only interested in whether or not the engine maker is responding. They don't care if the reason for denying the claim is reasonable or not - if there is activity of some sort, they are satisfied.

Small Claims Court? Well that's better, but the burden of proof is on the plaintiff - joe sixpack. I can almost guarrantee that the court is going to take one look at OCI of 24,000 miles and say "Isn't according to the warranty - warranty denial is justified."

At this point joe sixpack should go to Amsoil and file a claim - and the process starts all over again.


The key point that seems to be consistently missed is that the engine maker can deny a warranty for any reason whatsoever, and the next step is always joe sixpack's. So long as the engine maker is not paying, the warranty remains denied and it is up to joe sizpack to break the logja - and that can be quite a hurdle to overcome.

Right and wrong have nothing to do with warranty - being able to convince the guy who is responsible for paying out warranty claims has everything to do with it.

So if you are ever in a situation were a warrant claim is being denied, look for those things that are convincing to the other party, and put your own sense of "what is right and what is wrong" in the closet.

 

[Mike_dup1]

The referred post about a "Cathy Covington" and her problems with a Ford dealer had nothing to do with using Amsoil, it was another brand of oil. In case some jumped to the conclusion that is was about Amsoil!

 

[Pablo]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

This is where AMSOIL would step in. If the OEM says AMSOIL is at fault, then AMSOIL will come in and prove them wrong. You don't have to take the manufacturer to court. AMSOIL will. And like AMSOIL states, no OEM has rejected warranty work because AMSOIL was used.

---

I have yet to hear that this has been done by Amsoil. By definition...Amsoil warrants that their oil will perform satisfactory in a "mechanically sound engine" If the engine blows up the engine is mechanically unsound by definition. The claim will then be on the owner and not Amsoil..by their definition. It will be difficult for Amsoil to argue against the manufacturer that the engine was "Unsound". Therefore they won't..I suspect.

I would like to see proof that dontradicts what I am saying.

---

I think the fact that Amsoil actually bought some people engines with Toyota sludge models makes your post speculative and bogus. Amsoil did not have to buy the engines and the engines were defective. Not only this - Amsoil wised up some as well, and changed their OCI recommendations:

http://www.amsoil.com/lit/g1490.pdf

 

[GC4lunch]

Quote:

---

There seems to be a strong misconcpetion about the way these warranty claims actually work. Allow me to illustrate.

The engine maker doesn't have to PROVE anything, he just says "warranty denied", and the next move is joe sixpack's. What usually happens after that is a lot of screaming and yelling from joe sixpack, but to what effect? Warranty still denied.

Call the BBB? They only DOCUMENT the dispute and verify that the engine maker recognizes that a complaint has been registered - and provided the engine maker responds to the BBB letter with a reason (and doesn't even have to be a good one), the next move is still joe sixpack's.

Attorney General? Same situation. They are only interested in whether or not the engine maker is responding. They don't care if the reason for denying the claim is reasonable or not - if there is activity of some sort, they are satisfied.

Small Claims Court? Well that's better, but the burden of proof is on the plaintiff - joe sixpack. I can almost guarrantee that the court is going to take one look at OCI of 24,000 miles and say "Isn't according to the warranty - warranty denial is justified."

At this point joe sixpack should go to Amsoil and file a claim - and the process starts all over again.


The key point that seems to be consistently missed is that the engine maker can deny a warranty for any reason whatsoever, and the next step is always joe sixpack's. So long as the engine maker is not paying, the warranty remains denied and it is up to joe sizpack to break the logja - and that can be quite a hurdle to overcome.

Right and wrong have nothing to do with warranty - being able to convince the guy who is responsible for paying out warranty claims has everything to do with it.

So if you are ever in a situation were a warrant claim is being denied, look for those things that are convincing to the other party, and put your own sense of "what is right and what is wrong" in the closet.

---

CapriRacer, I'm agreeing with you, but I want to look at the same issue from a slightly different angle.

The contract involved is the contract of sale between the car dealer (acting as agent for the manufacturer in the case of a new vehicle) and the car buyer. The warranty is part of the "basis of the bargain," part of the terms of the larger contract; the warranty, standing alone, is not the contract.

There is a lot of folklore circulating about what the Magnuson-Moss legislation (and the FTC rules under it) says. That folklore bandies about the words "prove" and "proof." In fact, Magnuson-Moss did not alter the burden of proof or (related but not identical) the burden of coming forward with evidence in state contract actions. And, although Magnuson-Moss is a part of the United States Code, the remedy it provides for the most part require the consumer to use the state courts; the Act did not create any jurisdiction for the federal court system (which comprises courts of limited jurisdiction) to hear original actions of individual consumers aggreived by violations of the warranty provisions.

Now, under long-standing principles of antitrust, it is illegal for a vendor of a product in short supply and high demand to "tie" the sale of that product to the purchaser's agreement to purchase other products that can be purchased elsewhere. In drafting the Magnuson-Moss legislation, the Congress made sure that sellers could not accomplish through restrictive clauses in warranties the kind of tying that would have been illegal outside of the warranty context; that is all. The anti-tying provision has nothing to do with the burden of proof in a court action.

The burden of proof in a warranty action is the same as the burden of proof in any action for breach of a contract in the state where the action is brought to court. Magnuson-Moss did not alter that.

 

[ekpolk]

CapriRacer & GC4Lunch:

Guys, those statements about burden of proof are just wrong. Once the owner has met his initial burden of proving that there is in fact some problem with the car that is keeping it from performing as intended, then the burden shifts to the manufacturer to prove that the defect was a result of something that the owner (or some other third party) did. Below is a nice clear statement from an appellate decision I found in about thirty seconds running my first Westlaw search on this point with the first terms that popped into my head. It’s from Cline v. Daimler-Chrysler, 113 P. 3d 468 (2005) (in plain English, you can find this opinion in Vol 114, Pacific Reports, third series, Page 468).

The statutes and regs are pretty clear on this, and there are many, many more appellate decisions which reiterate and follow this law. . .

Quote:

---

In Universal Motors, Inc. v. Waldock, 719 P.2d 254 (Alaska 1986), the court analyzed the shifting burden of proof in a Magnuson-Moss action.
Once the consumer offers credible evidence that the defect is related to materials or workmanship, thus establishing a prima facie case of breach of warranty,
the burden shifts to the warrantor to prove consumer abuse. Id. at 259. The Alaska court noted the specific language of 15 U.S.C. § 2304(c) “places the burden of proving owner abuse squarely on the warrantor.” Waldock, 719 P.2d at 256. We agree.

---

Now, obviously, an owner should not expect the "legally correct" response at the dealership service desk, especially if the mfr has decided that they're going to try to pull off a denial. Go to court, however, and things will change. You guys got any legal authority to backup what you're saying here???

 

[hominid7]

I believe a car maker would have every right to refuse a warranty due to 25K oil changes, regardless of what oil you used.

I also woudn't buy a used car that had 25K mile oil changes, again, regardless of what oil was used.

 

[ekpolk]

Quote:

---

I believe a car maker would have every right to refuse a warranty due to 25K oil changes, regardless of what oil you used.

---

Of course, you are perfectly entitled to your opinion, but this is not what the law says. A car maker would only be legally entitled to refuse a wty claim on the basis or oil neglect (of any form, 25k changes included, if in fact that IS oil neglect...) if in fact they can prove a causal link between the extended change and the claimed defect. If in a particular case they can, then you're absolutely right. If they can't, assuming the owner has a lawyer who knows what he's doing, they will end up paying for the repair, and the owner's attorney's fees and costs.

Quote:

---

I also woudn't buy a used car that had 25K mile oil changes, again, regardless of what oil was used.

---

That's always your choice. I might, but I'd want to see a UOA first. But that's my opinion; I certainly won't begrudge you yours.

 

[Al]

Thanks for your expertise ekpolk. You posted this same information in the past but with different references. It is very much appreciated. I believe you also mentioned at the time that the "Extended Warranty" is a different kettle of fish shifting the burdon of proof to the User.

 

[Al]

More threads where ekpolk clarified

http://theoildrop.server101.com/forums/s...true#Post727155

http://theoildrop.server101.com/forums/s...part=1&vc=1

 

[ekpolk]

Quote:

---

Thanks for your expertise ekpolk. You posted this same information in the past but with different references. It is very much appreciated. I believe you also mentioned at the time that the "Extended Warranty" is a different kettle of fish shifting the burdon of proof to the User.

---

Yes Al, those EWs are, generally speaking, totally creatures of contract. Plf will have burden of proof, and contract may contain terms that would never survive under the MMWA. Of course, state law may vary, and anyone with a real problem should promptly consult a local attorney.

 

[wileyE]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

engines and the engines were defective. Not only this - Amsoil wised up some as well, and changed their OCI recommendations:

http://www.amsoil.com/lit/g1490.pdf

---

Thanks you Pablo, 1 year isn't out on a limb too far for any oil. Also from the chart link where does it recommend double the normal service for boats, motorcycle small engines etc? hear this horn blowing from dealers often. As far as warranty from amsoil I can;t help not to think of some other parts warantys. Like rebuilt water pumps etc, 39.99 for the 3 year, 59.99 for the lifetime. It's the same darn #@$%! pump, the +$20 just pays the "insurance premium" on warranty. And I'm sure the numbers work out well into the favor of the manuafacture. The warranty is NO proof that the product is better. So it's all nice and well that amsoil may back you on a claim (if they haven't exhausted thier budget for the year), but please amsoil mlm's, spare us all that any kind of "warranty" proves the product is better.

 

[Cutehumor]

Quote:

---

I believe a car maker would have every right to refuse a warranty due to 25K oil changes, regardless of what oil you used.

I also woudn't buy a used car that had 25K mile oil changes, again, regardless of what oil was used.

---

I agree. this board has been up for almost 5 years. After all these posts and UOAs, very rarely do we see someone do 25k oil changes. Were lucky to see if someone will go past 20k miles with UOA.

 

[ekpolk]

CH:

Of course, you should do what's right for your car in your conditions (and your comfort level). I don't do 20 or 25k, but on the other hand, my impression from the UOA collection is that where there are some clear examples of oil stress (where over 20k would likely lead to big trouble); but that said, there are plenty of cases of early-changing oil waste in cases where a long drain oil like the appropriate Amsoil product would do just fine. Just because we rarely see it reported here doesn't mean that there aren't plenty of people whose cars and situations would allow 25k to be done easily.

 

[wileyE]

Mobile was another synthetic oil that used to market 25k, but recanted their position for whatever reason. When you hear about fleets doing this in cars and light trucks, I tend to write it off as either an experiment in progress or someone has a bud selling the product or just a true believer in the right place to make policy. Not conclusive about whether it's a good idea or not. I know some of the places I’ve worked who maintain big fleets had cases of snakey stuff in the shop purchased by the equipment manager, A. because he was a true believer or B. because the sales rep was cute.

 

[Lonnie]

Where are you left if a company like Amsoil says that their oil was not at fault. Are you enough of an expert to know it that's true. And if the manufacturer says it's your fault then it becomes expensive to continue. Extended oci's under factory warranty appear to be a risky deal and for what gain? Engines are expensive, oil changes are cheap. Everyone I know that has tried an extended interval has chickened out and changed the oil. One friend told me he was watching NCIS and turned off the TV, went to the parts store, bought oil and a filter and changed it that night. He said it had bothered him all week and he was not going to let it go another day. I hate to say it, but I agree with him.

 

[ekpolk]

Lonnie:

I don't disagree with your risk assessment, and I'm not personally encouraging anyone to "go for it" with extended OCIs. I'm just saying that if you want to do it, the conditions are right, and you're willing to accept the possibility of having to fight it out, then you you should be fine, in the long run. If it's not right for you, by all means, don't do it. Personally, I have a Toyota Certified Used Prius, with a 7 year, 100 wty, and I'm just biting the bullet and doing the now across-the-board Toyota recommended 5k OCIs. On the other hand, the MMWA, and the cases interpreting it say what they say. What to do for any one car, that's up to the owner.

 

[TeeDub]

Lonnie,

A big part of overall fleet costs is tied up in labor and downtime. Running extended OCI's significantly reduces these labor/downtime costs, along with the cost associated with storing and disposing of the used oil/filters.

For an individual vehicle owner, of course the savings associated with extended oil drain intervals are quite small. In this case I see the primary benefit in terms of the convenience of not having to change oil as often, particularly if you service cars for family members as I do.

I've been doing extended drains with Amsoil for 29 years under all sorts of driving conditions. Provided the engine is mechanically sound (this includes being tuned up from time to time), there are no real concerns with this practice. In fact I dare say that all the lubricated parts using Amsoil will far outlast the body and interior of the car.

TD

 

[GC4lunch]

Quote:

---

CapriRacer & GC4Lunch:

Guys, those statements about burden of proof are just wrong.

---

In fact, it is you who has misread the applicable law. What I wrote is, "The burden of proof in a warranty action is the same as the burden of proof in any action for breach of a contract in the state where the action is brought to court. Magnuson-Moss did not alter that."

I stand by my earlier statement.

Quote:

---

Once the owner has met his initial burden of proving that there is in fact some problem with the car that is keeping it from performing as intended, then the burden shifts to the manufacturer to prove that the defect was a result of something that the owner (or some other third party) did.

---

The actual language of the statute is:

Quote:

---

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).

---

15 USC sec. 2304(c). Note that the statue makes no reference to a "burden of proof," much less to its shifting. The "subsection (a)" referred to in section 2304(c) is section 2304(a), which requires, simply, that a warrantor honor the terms of the warranty -- "performance of the duties" -- nothing more.

Quote:

---

Below is a nice clear statement from an appellate decision I found in about thirty seconds running my first Westlaw search on this point with the first terms that popped into my head. It’s from Cline v. Daimler-Chrysler, 113 P. 3d 468 (2005) (in plain English, you can find this opinion in Vol 114, Pacific Reports, third series, Page 468).

Quote:

---

In Universal Motors, Inc. v. Waldock, 719 P.2d 254 (Alaska 1986), the court analyzed the shifting burden of proof in a Magnuson-Moss action.
Once the consumer offers credible evidence that the defect is related to materials or workmanship, thus establishing a prima facie case of breach of warranty,
the burden shifts to the warrantor to prove consumer abuse. Id. at 259. The Alaska court noted the specific language of 15 U.S.C. § 2304(c) “places the burden of proving owner abuse squarely on the warrantor.” Waldock, 719 P.2d at 256. We agree.

---

---

You should know that that is far from a clear statement. The devil is in the "once the consumer offers credible evidence" formulation. You know what that really means? It means that, as in all contract cases, the burden of proof is upon the plaintiff who alleges that the contract has been breached.

By coming forward with "credible evidence that the defect is related to materials or workmanship," the plaintiff establishes a prima facie case of breach that requires some rebuttal. The part about the "burden shifts" is not a shifting of the burden of proof, but rather a simple requirement within the unchanging burden of proof to rebut a presentation of evidence. I know the dictum you cited refers to a "shifting of burden of proof," but that is just sloppy drafting of the Oklahoma intermediate court's opinion, as the judges of even that court would readily concede if anybody bothered to point it out. The burden of proof does not shift, ever. Even mid-level state courts in Oklahoma know that. The burden of coming forward with evidence shifts, not the burden of proof which remains fixed upon the plaintiff who attempts to establish that the contract has been breached. (I noted the distinction between the burden of proof and the burden of coming forward in an earlier post.)

Quote:

---

The statutes and regs are pretty clear on this, and there are many, many more appellate decisions which reiterate and follow this law. . .
Now, obviously, an owner should not expect the "legally correct" response at the dealership service desk, especially if the mfr has decided that they're going to try to pull off a denial. Go to court, however, and things will change. You guys got any legal authority to backup what you're saying here???

---

Just about 350 years of the interpretation of contract law by the courts under the common law of England and the United States.

Let us take this back to the original issue. A vehicle has experienced a mechanical breakdown, and the vehicle owner alleges that the breakdown is covered by the manufacturer's warranty, which (we shall assume) warrants against defects in material and workmanship. The first burden (of coming forward with evidence) is upon the plaintiff (vehicle owner) to present evidence to establish that the breakdown was due to a defect in materials or workmanship. The mere fact that there was a mechanical breakdown, all by itself, usually will not establish that. Even your Oklahoma intermediate court opinion does not absolve the vehicle owner from presenting credible evidence "that the defect is related to materials or workmanship."

Once the vehicle owner has done that -- and it is anything but a slam dunk -- then, yes, the warrantor can present evidence that the reason for the breakdown was not a defect in materials or workmanship, but rather another cause, such as the owner's negligence. The showing of a 25,000 mile OCI (coupled with expert testimony upon the probable effect of waiting 25,000 miles to change oil) might be sufficient evidence to rebut the prima facie case of the plaintiff. And -- lookee here! -- sec. 2304(c) of the Magnuson-Moss statute (quoted above) specifically allows the warrantor to show "unreasonable use (including failure to provide reasonable and necessary maintenance)."

Ultimately all the warrantor needs to do is break down the plaintiff's case, so the plaintiff fails to sustain the plaintiff's burden of proof. The warrantor does not need to prove any proposition on its own merits; the warrantor needs only to show that the plaintiff/consumer has failed to prove that the defect that caused the breakdown was due to a defect in materials or workmanship.

Ultimately, the vehicle owner must prove that the warrantor has breached the contract of sale, which includes the warranty offered at the time of sale. It is the vehicle owner's burden of proof, start to finish, and the burden of proof never "shifts."

 

[ekpolk]

GC4:

Show us one appellate court decision that supports what you say. Take your time. The 350 or so that poured out of my first couple Westlaw searches all said pretty much the same thing that the Cline case, which I cited above, said.

For the others reading this thread - don't be fooled. The name of the game in the law is authority. That's a nice long post that GC4 put up, but look carefully -- he has offered not one bit of authority to back up his assertions. Not one case or statute.

GC4, the statute, and the cases I cited, say what they say. If you don't agree with them, fine, you're entitled to your opinion. Unless you can come up with some specific authority that contradicts what I've represented that the law is, then I stand by what I say.

Surely you have access to either Westlaw or Lexis/Nexis. . .

p.s. laughing smiley faces don't count as "authority" to support professional legal arguments.

 

[The Critic]

ekpolk:

Out of curiosity, give us an example of a typical case involving the M.M. Act. Give us the arguments that the attorney(s) representing each side would use for support their side of the case. Perhaps this would give us a clearer picture of how both sides would approach a typical M.M. side. Not trying to doubt you, but something is telling me that a typical case involving M.M. isn't as "cut and dry" and easy as you sometimes make it seem.