4th Bar Lost, Warranty Denied!

[mwalsh]

Because this law firm represents "the class" which includes all 2011 and 2012 owners (who haven't opted out), I would think that ANY class member could contact the firm and ask them for a copy of any document that was filed in court.

You'd think. Though the last email I sent them requesting an update on where things were at went ignored, though I wasn't particularly persistent other than emailing the supposed settlement administrator email address. But by the same token, that email didn't bounce back, so it should have been on the server waiting for someone to read it, should they have had an interest in doing so. Even if, I suppose, they felt no obligation to reply, since I'd opted-out by then, an email telling me to "get lost" would have been more professional than silence.

 

[mwalsh]

Looking through the initial complaint filing again, I still think it was a huge mistake to only go after Nissan on the lack of thermal management. What they should have done (maybe in conjunction with or maybe instead of) is go after them on the choice to not use a ceramic coated separator between the battery electrodes and the choice of an electrolyte that wasn't particularly robust, with the insistence that they both be addressed under the existing materials and workmanship warranty. That's what I would have done, even if it meant a slew more work on the discovery and expert witness front. It certainly would have been more beneficial for plaintiffs and class.

 

[DaveEV]

A ceramic coated separator only improves safety under extremely high temps, not durability. Durability improvements would have to come from electrolyte, anode or cathode changes (or active cooling).

 

[mwalsh]

A ceramic coated separator only improves safety under extremely high temps, not durability.

I'm not sure I completely agree. The thinner you can make a separator, the better it's performance (ion transport, etc...). The ceramic coating would let you use a thinner separator with less propensity towards shrinkage/deformation under heat. You'd need a thicker uncoated seperator with the same performance characteristics.

So, yes, safer for sure. But safer with better performance.

 

[leafkabob]

Looking through the initial complaint filing again, I still think it was a huge mistake to only go after Nissan on the lack of thermal management. What they should have done (maybe in conjunction with or maybe instead of) is go after them on the choice to not use a ceramic coated separator between the battery electrodes and the choice of an electrolyte that wasn't particularly robust, with the insistence that they both be addressed under the existing materials and workmanship warranty. That's what I would have done, even if it meant a slew more work on the discovery and expert witness front. It certainly would have been more beneficial for plaintiffs and class.

Unfortunately I think the goal for the attorneys was to get paid. They ended up asking for $1.9 million in fees and costs. I'm sure they wanted to get the lawsuit settled as quickly as possible.

 

[TomT]

Yep, the shysters are the only ones who ever come out ahead in a class action, even against proven liars like Nissan...

Unfortunately I think the goal for the attorneys was to get paid. They ended up asking for $1.9 million in fees and costs. I'm sure they wanted to get the lawsuit settled as quickly as possible.

 

[knightmb]

This might be a real end-run on the issue, but from what I read, the opt-out follows the person, not the vehicle? So what if someone who was denied the warranty was to sell me their Leaf for $1, then I turn around and take it in for warranty battery replacement, then turn around and sell the vehicle back to them for another $1? :mrgreen:

Does the Warranty follow the car that way? Have I opened up Pandora's box just now with the idea? :shock:

 

[JeremyW]

From my correspondence with Nissan, it's tied to the vehicle's VIN.

 

[mwalsh]

+1. It's on the car and not the owner. Like corporations, our cars are now people. At least according to Nissan.

 

[knightmb]

+1. It's on the car and not the owner. Like corporations, our cars are now people. At least according to Nissan.

Well crap, that seems unfair to future owners. What if someone were to opt-out, then quickly sell the car (even if the battery was fine), imagine a future owner a few years later getting a bad battery and finding the previous owner voided the warrant that was suppose to be given. I do see why this needs some legal or media attention. That is as bad as buying a new vehicle, voiding the 100,000 mile power train warranty *somehow* through legal stuff (not by actually breaking it), then selling it and a future owner finding out 5 years later the warranty was already voided by a previous owner due to paperwork.

Seems like this would trigger all kind of lawsuits against Nissan, former vehicle owners, an all around cluster-fu*. :evil:

 

[mwalsh]

I wouldn't worry about it. If the amended settlement is approved, all who opt back in should have the B0133 removed from their cars. The cars of those who continue to opt-out may have an issue until they're out of warranty, but I'm guessing they'll be few compared to those from opting out the first time.

 

[mwalsh]

I am considering to buy 2011 that may qualify for battery replacement before 5 years 60KM. Problem is that car is missing yearly battery check for last 3 years. Wonder if yearly battery check is one of the condition for battery replacement program and because of that replacement was rejected

So (as we'd expected all along) the definitive answer appears to be...yes:

http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=18949" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[Armand]

+1. It's on the car and not the owner. Like corporations, our cars are now people. At least according to Nissan.

Well crap, that seems unfair to future owners. What if someone were to opt-out, then quickly sell the car (even if the battery was fine), imagine a future owner a few years later getting a bad battery and finding the previous owner voided the warrant that was suppose to be given. I do see why this needs some legal or media attention. That is as bad as buying a new vehicle, voiding the 100,000 mile power train warranty *somehow* through legal stuff (not by actually breaking it), then selling it and a future owner finding out 5 years later the warranty was already voided by a previous owner due to paperwork.

Seems like this would trigger all kind of lawsuits against Nissan, former vehicle owners, an all around cluster-fu*. :evil:

I don't think you fully appreciate the situation of the present owners. Those who opted out the first time and who might opt out again, given another chance, are likely doing this because they want to keep their cars. I'm one of them. Even if my car had ten miles of range, I could still go to work and back on one charge. I ain't selling this car for many years to come. Those in my position are fewer than 100 and their 60k/60mo limits are approaching fast. So I doubt you will ever come across the situation you described. However, it pays to be diligent when buying a used car.

 

[knightmb]

I don't think you fully appreciate the situation of the present owners. Those who opted out the first time and who might opt out again, given another chance, are likely doing this because they want to keep their cars. I'm one of them. Even if my car had ten miles of range, I could still go to work and back on one charge. I ain't selling this car for many years to come. Those in my position are fewer than 100 and their 60k/60mo limits are approaching fast. So I doubt you will ever come across the situation you described. However, it pays to be diligent when buying a used car.

Help me appreciate it then

If Nissan is willing to offer warranty that will replace a bad battery with a new one free of charge, why would anyone opt-out? Was there a clause in the class-action suit that said once you accept, you forever can never sue Nissan ever again?

 

[TimLee]

...
If Nissan is willing to offer warranty that will replace a bad battery with a new one free of charge, why would anyone opt-out? Was there a clause in the class-action suit that said once you accept, you forever can never sue Nissan ever again?

A very large percentage of people with a LEAF will not lose four capacity bars (<66.25%) before five years or 60,000 miles.
My guess is it may be 95%.

Most of the 110 people that Opted Out considered the settlement grossly inadequate, many determined they would not qualify for the capacity warranty, and some were misled by Nissan's communication that they would still have the capacity warranty even if they Opted Out.

And as often is the case very few in the class were knowledgeable to make an intelligent decision in the Opt Out time and detailed requirements.

So as often happens a Class Action that helps less than 5% went forward. The efforts of the objectors have improved the capacity warranty for the 5%, and given a token $50 to the rest.

Still sad and pathetic.

Can you be in the Class and still sue Nissan :?:
You can always sue, but unlikely you would succeed on the issue of capacity degradation and possibly even range being less than you expected based on Nissan statements because the Class settled those issues. Even small claims court will rule against you in under five minutes.

Hence why many more people now recognize being Opted Out is better.
But court may not give them that chance.
Possible that only those that Opted Out before will have an opportunity to remain Opted Out.

 

[91040]

Well summarized, Tim.

Yes, as a condition of being a member of the class, you cannot bring an action against Nissan regarding battery capacity (possibly related battery issues as well).

If Nissan is willing to offer warranty that will replace a bad battery with a new one free of charge, why would anyone opt-out? Was there a clause in the class-action suit that said once you accept, you forever can never sue Nissan ever again?

 

[dgpcolorado]

Speaking just for myself, I opted-out because I view class action lawsuits as little more than ways for a small group of lawyers to enrich themselves by extorting money from companies, to little or no benefit of the "class".

At the time of the opt-out decision process, Nissan had long since implemented a battery capacity warranty on all LEAFs; the warranty notice we received said nothing whatsoever about the class action lawsuit, nor was it contingent upon it. Furthermore, it was apparent to me that most LEAF owners, including myself, would never hit the four Capacity Bar loss in 60 months/60,000 miles. So even if the lawsuit document had been linked to the warranty — it was not! — it would have been moot. And still is.

 

[mwalsh]

If Nissan is willing to offer warranty that will replace a bad battery with a new one free of charge, why would anyone opt-out? Was there a clause in the class-action suit that said once you accept, you forever can never sue Nissan ever again?

There was never an initial offer of a new battery, just one that was refurbished to 9 or more capacity bars, whether by repair of the old pack; replacement with a rebuilt pack; or by replacement with a new one of the same design. All at Nissan's discretion.

Now, to Nissan's credit, it appeared the were happy enough to offer new packs for the time being, of the brand new "Lizard" design even, when it became available, but we had no clue if that would be their long-term position or not.

And yes, once you accept the class action settlement, you can never sue Nissan on this issue again.

The updated proposed settlement isn't that much different than the original one, except for a couple of provisions, the key one being that it appears Nissan won't be able to offer anything but a brand new pack of the (at the time) current design and technology. THAT IS...UNLESS the technology advances trail off, in which case I suppose they could theoretically be rebuilding packs with the current technology eventually. But I really can't see that happening for '11/'12 cars by '17/'18, when they'll all be more than 5 years old.

 

[knightmb]

...
If Nissan is willing to offer warranty that will replace a bad battery with a new one free of charge, why would anyone opt-out? Was there a clause in the class-action suit that said once you accept, you forever can never sue Nissan ever again?

A very large percentage of people with a LEAF will not lose four capacity bars (<66.25%) before five years or 60,000 miles.
My guess is it may be 95%.

Most of the 110 people that Opted Out considered the settlement grossly inadequate, many determined they would not qualify for the capacity warranty, and some were misled by Nissan's communication that they would still have the capacity warranty even if they Opted Out.

And as often is the case very few in the class were knowledgeable to make an intelligent decision in the Opt Out time and detailed requirements.

So as often happens a Class Action that helps less than 5% went forward. The efforts of the objectors have improved the capacity warranty for the 5%, and given a token $50 to the rest.

Still sad and pathetic.

Can you be in the Class and still sue Nissan :?:
You can always sue, but unlikely you would succeed on the issue of capacity degradation and possibly even range being less than you expected based on Nissan statements because the Class settled those issues. Even small claims court will rule against you in under five minutes.

Hence why many more people now recognize being Opted Out is better.
But court may not give them that chance.
Possible that only those that Opted Out before will have an opportunity to remain Opted Out.

Great Summary, Thanks! I have read a lot here about it and after so many pages of reading, information kind of just jumbos together. Thanks for peeling out the concerns that people were having.

 

[keydiver]

If Nissan is willing to offer warranty that will replace a bad battery with a new one free of charge, why would anyone opt-out?

The mailing from Nissan announcing the new battery capacity warranty went out ~3 months before we were contacted about opting in/out of the class action suit. Nissan's letter indicated it was purely a gesture of goodwill to its customers, and made no mention that it was related to the suit, so many of us never connected the dots that opting out meant we were rejecting the new warranty and retaining our future rights to sue Nissan. At least, that seems to be how Nissan interpreted it. :roll: