by h2one » Thu Dec 16, 2010 10:29 am
Hello! A year ago, my 2007 Avalon was in an accident that required extended repair, including replacing the radiator. Since the accident was not my fault, I had Geico repair my vehicle to pre-accident conditions, and asked them to use all Toyota parts.
A year later, I realized my car was overheating and took it into a toyota dealer. The dealer told me that I needed about $4200 worth of repairs, including a new headgasket, but it wouldn't be a warranty fix because the radiator was an aftermarket part. Geico is denying my claim because the aftermarket radiator is still functional when the damage adjuster checked it out, and said that they don't know if the radiator directly caused the damage to the engine.
Neither Geico nor Toyota has told me that the aftermarket part would void my basic powertrain warranty. What would my legal options be in this matter if I wanted to sue Geico for not restoring my vehicle to pre-accident conditions? Is there a better way to do this? I have spoken to almost everyone at Toyota, including a case manager at corporate and the general manager at the dealership. They are limited by their policies.
A year later, I realized my car was overheating and took it into a toyota dealer. The dealer told me that I needed about $4200 worth of repairs, including a new headgasket, but it wouldn't be a warranty fix because the radiator was an aftermarket part. Geico is denying my claim because the aftermarket radiator is still functional when the damage adjuster checked it out, and said that they don't know if the radiator directly caused the damage to the engine.
Neither Geico nor Toyota has told me that the aftermarket part would void my basic powertrain warranty. What would my legal options be in this matter if I wanted to sue Geico for not restoring my vehicle to pre-accident conditions? Is there a better way to do this? I have spoken to almost everyone at Toyota, including a case manager at corporate and the general manager at the dealership. They are limited by their policies.
Posted: Wed Dec 29, 2010 02:52 pm Post Subject:
The use of Alternative Parts
Due to the sensitive nature of the safety and performance systems and lack of testing to determine their effect on vehicle crashworthiness, Toyota, Lexus and Scion do not recommend the use of alternative parts for the repair of Toyota vehicles.
Although the language states "do not recommend" and the preceding language talks about safety and performance, it does not appear to be so exclusively used as to cause non-OEM parts to void a warranty. This is one of those AMBIGUITIES in a contract that would be governed by the principle of ADHESION. You and I read "do not recommend" as allowing non-OEM parts. Toyota probably reads it as "Use of non-genuine Toyota parts voids all other warranties." In a courtroom, I think Toyota would lose.
Mike is still correct . . . this could be the breeding ground for another massive legal action -- something Toyota would certainly not be in the mood for these days. Without absolute proof that the design of the part used caused the new damage, they are on very thin ice when it comes to denying the repairs under warranty.
I would encourage you to stick to your guns and demand coverage under the terms of the original manufacturer's warranty. You can also file a complaint with your state's Dept of Insurance, which might be all the prodding Toyota needs to get off the pot and settle the claim.
Posted: Wed Dec 29, 2010 10:17 pm Post Subject:
Although the language states "do not recommend" and the preceding language talks about safety and performance, it does not appear to be so exclusively used as to cause non-OEM parts to void a warranty. This is one of those AMBIGUITIES in a contract that would be governed by the principle of ADHESION. You and I read "do not recommend" as allowing non-OEM parts. Toyota probably reads it as "Use of non-genuine Toyota parts voids all other warranties." In a courtroom, I think Toyota would lose.
I think that oem manufacturers use the term recommend in the sense that they can not force anyone to use their services for any repairs. Kinda like your mother might tell you I recommend you not stick your finger in that electrical socket. She can forbid all she wants but may not be able to keep the child from performing the act. Once the property is no longer owned by toyota, all that can be required of the property owner is following manufacturer recommendations for service in accordance to the warranty. There is a letter circulating from an insurer stating that the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act prevents an automaker from voiding the warranty on OEM parts simply because non-OEM parts were installed on a car. The insurer claimed therefore that is all they owe for a loss (a/m parts). However, an attorney rebutted this argument by stating that if the manufacturer can trace the defect back to the use of the aftermarket part, then the automaker is not liable under the warranty to correct the damage. It was, after all, the insurers contractual agreement to place the vehicle owner in the position they held prior to the loss. The attorney further stated
If the insurer is telling an insured/claimant that the manufacturer cannot consider the use of an aftermarket part in any denial of warranty coverage, the insurer is dead wrong."
Definately looks like the courts will have to resolve this issue in due time.
Posted: Thu Dec 30, 2010 12:46 am Post Subject:
Of course they do not "recommend" someone else's parts. If I was selling merchandise I'd not recommend someone else's product either.
Posted: Thu Dec 30, 2010 05:26 am Post Subject:
manufacturers use the term recommend in the sense that they can not force anyone to use their services for any repairs
Yes, I agree, that issue was settled decades ago (1970s). I don't think it prohibits a vehicle warranty from explicitly stating something like "Failure to use genuine Toyota repair parts will void the warranty to the extent permitted by law." (Emissions warranties are specified under federal law and cannot be amended in such a manner). But I don't think Toyota has stated anything like that in their new vehicle warranty.
Posted: Wed Oct 03, 2012 06:06 pm Post Subject: "Exact same" scenario :-)
My son purchased an extended 100k bumper to bumper warranty when he bought his new Subaru WRX. Car was damaged by a deer on Mass Pike and repairs (including RADIATOR) done at a Commerce Insurance repair shop. 8,000 miles later engine blows. Subaru says non Subaru radiator caused engine failure. Commerce Adjuster says engine failure caused radiator to blow. Luckily we purchased through an Agent who seems to be going to bat for the kid. Stay tuned :-) :-(
Add your comment