Amended Settlement in Klee v. Nissan

[Evoforce]

Where I land on this is the uncertainty of the battery replacement if I fall within the warranty. They only technically have to repair my battery to the nine bar level as they agreed to in the original warranty. I concede that they have been replacing the batteries rather than repairing them to the 9 bar level. But in my case as well as others that did not own their cars as of the notification day in 2013, we fall into that hole that revert back to the original warranty of only repairing them to the 9 bar status. It may be an unfounded fear but I'm at the cusp of having to test this out. My belief is they will continue to change the batteries out with 2015 chemistry but they are not legally bound to do that for those other than the original eighteen or nineteen thousand notified in 2013. when talking to the court settlement office that gives information out about this settlement they specifically stated and referred me back to this original warranty and specifically say that it will only be repaired to the 9 bar level.

 

[Firetruck41]

Where I land on this is the uncertainty of the battery replacement if I fall within the warranty. They only technically have to repair my battery to the nine bar level as they agreed to in the original warranty. I concede that they have been replacing the batteries rather than repairing them to the 9 bar level. But in my case as well as others that did not own their cars as of the notification day in 2013, we fall into that hole that revert back to the original warranty of only repairing them to the 9 bar status. It may be an unfounded fear but I'm at the cusp of having to test this out. My belief is they will continue to change the batteries out with 2015 chemistry but they are not legally bound to do that for those other than the original eight or nine thousand notified in 2013. when talking to the court settlement office that gives information out about this settlement they specifically stated and referred me back to this original warranty and specifically say that it will only be repaired to the 9 bar level.

When I read the amended settlement (weeks ago, admittedly), I did not see anything regarding original owner or second owner/etc, and I was specifically looking for it. So I believe the settlement applies to me as a second owner (assuming my VIN did not opt out). If this is erroneous info, I would love to see it in writing, not to prove who is right/wrong, but because I sincerely want to know for my own peace of mind.

 

[mwalsh]

Where I land on this is the uncertainty of the battery replacement if I fall within the warranty. They only technically have to repair my battery to the nine bar level as they agreed to in the original warranty. I concede that they have been replacing the batteries rather than repairing them to the 9 bar level. But in my case as well as others that did not own their cars as of the notification day in 2013, we fall into that hole that revert back to the original warranty of only repairing them to the 9 bar status. It may be an unfounded fear but I'm at the cusp of having to test this out. My belief is they will continue to change the batteries out with 2015 chemistry but they are not legally bound to do that for those other than the original eight or nine thousand notified in 2013. when talking to the court settlement office that gives information out about this settlement they specifically stated and referred me back to this original warranty and specifically say that it will only be repaired to the 9 bar level.

I think that's an unfounded fear - there is no way Nissan is going to go to that much extra effort to screw over the small number of non-original owners.

 

[keydiver]

I believe the settlement applies to me as a second owner (assuming my VIN did not opt out). If this is erroneous info, I would love to see it in writing, not to prove who is right/wrong, but because I sincerely want to know for my own peace of mind.

We have had several stories here on MNL recently of people who bought a used Leaf, lost their 9th bar, found out about the new capacity warranty, took it to a Nissan dealer, and got a new 2015 battery. So, I think any fears of Nissan not doing right by secondhand owners is unfounded.

 

[leafkabob]

I believe the settlement applies to me as a second owner (assuming my VIN did not opt out). If this is erroneous info, I would love to see it in writing, not to prove who is right/wrong, but because I sincerely want to know for my own peace of mind.

We have had several stories here on MNL recently of people who bought a used Leaf, lost their 9th bar, found out about the new capacity warranty, took it to a Nissan dealer, and got a new 2015 battery. So, I think any fears of Nissan not doing right by secondhand owners is unfounded.

+1. But I will add that it isn't a matter of Nissan voluntarily "doing right" as much as Nissan must comply with the warranty.

Firetruck41: The settlement absolutely applies to you if you are the owner of a 2011 or 2012 Leaf. Even if the previous owner opted out, it is my opinion that you still will qualify for a replacement battery if you meet the other requirements.

 

[TimLee]

...They only technically have to repair my battery to the nine bar level as they agreed to in the original warranty. I concede that they have been replacing the batteries rather than repairing them to the 9 bar level. But in my case as well as others that did not own their cars as of the notification day in 2013, we fall into that hole that revert back to the original warranty of only repairing them to the 9 bar status. ...

Completely incorrect.
2011 and 2012 LEAF did not have any original capacity warranty.

The repair to 9 bars was only the proposed settlement of the class action.

The court did not approve that and put it into mediation.

The final mediation agreement is battery replacement with current technology battery at the time the replacement is done.

ALL capacity warranty replacements will be a complete new pack.

Not quite as clear that all used LEAF purchasers are covered.
But that appears to be what Nissan is doing.
Only ones not covered are an owner or leasor that was in the class that Opted Out and did not Opt Back In.
Of those the ones that the lease ends without the leasor buying Nissan seems to be covering them as Nissan was the owner.
Not as clear if purchaser sold the car to someone else.
Nissan might not cover those.
Probably <100 cars with some uncertainty.

 

[Evoforce]

I got my information straight from the courts. If you were not one of those that were mailed the packet in 2013, You are not part of the class and therefore the original warranty applies. Could the court settlement people be giving out the wrong info? Possibly, but that's Information they're giving out.

 

[Firetruck41]

Fortunately this does not apply to me as I ended up with a 2013. But as I mentioned I do remember reading it when I was doing for 2012+ this summer. Since probably all 2011 and 2012 models were party of the "class" (except for the 50 or less who opted out), virtually all 2011-2012 Leafs would be included. There was no mention of when or who the car was purchased from, that I recall, so that should not matter...

 

[Evoforce]

Legally, they are not obligated to do so except for the members of the class. Have they been summarily replacing packs with new ones? Yes. Let's just hope that continues.

 

[Leafer77]

Regardless of what the legal agreement says, Individual cells are not being replaced. Their Nissan Leaf technician's are trained to only replace the entire battery pack and they are only given a full battery pack.

 

[Valdemar]

Regardless of what the legal agreement says, Individual cells are not being replaced. Their Nissan Leaf technician's are trained to only replace the entire battery pack and they are only given a full battery pack.

This is not entirely true, there was a recent report on MNL when someone had 2 faulty modules replaced. This wasn't a capacity warranty replacement though.

 

[DiamondDan73]

From a legal stance the "Car" is what is covered not the "Owner". It is very clear that the settlement attached to the the cars' warranty; period. There should be no more of this non-sense about only original owners are covered. If you want to see for yourself, look at the settlement and read line 9. When you buy a car, any and all warranties are transferred to the new owner.

 

[GerryAZ]

I got my information straight from the courts. If you were not one of those that were mailed the packet in 2013, You are not part of the class and therefore the original warranty applies. Could the court settlement people be giving out the wrong info? Possibly, but that's Information they're giving out.

Am I the only one seeing irony in this? Nissan sent out the 9-bar capacity warranty information to original owners long before the plaintif attorneys sent the information about the class action. The sleazy attorneys implied that the supplemental capacity warranty from Nissan was part of the class action and an owner would have no capacity warranty if he/she opted out of the settlement. I was in the process of getting a new battery under Nissan's supplemental capacity warranty when I received the class action package. The Customer Service Representatives at the Nissan EV Line were calling me every week to give me status updates on the new battery coming from Japan so I asked them about this class action--they told me on more than one occasion that they were unable to get any answers if or how the class action would affect the warranty. I waited until the new battery was installed and then opted out of the class action near the deadline. I would have objected to the settlement, but the objection deadline passed before I received the new battery. Neither Nissan nor the sleazy class action attorneys questioned my opt out. I actually sent a letter with my opt out form that included technical reasoning and was written as an objection letter. By the time I received the opt back in paperwork for the updated settlement, my 2011 was history. It is clear that both Nissan and the plaintiff attorneys accepted my original opt out because they gave me a chance to opt back in. I chose to remain opted out of the class action as my way to protest and avoid being a party to the money-grabbing deal the plaintiff attorneys negotiated for themselves.

I read everything I received regarding the class action as an original owner of a 2011 and nothing in those documents gives any basis for treating cars owned by original owners and cars purchased used differently for capacity warranty coverage. As long as the original owners of the cars Evoforce now owns did not opt out of the class action, they should both be covered for the remainder of 5 years and 60,000 miles. It is not likely the lizard battery will need replacing, but the capacity of the other one should drop enough to qualify for replacement with a new lizard battery in the time/mileage remaining.

I should also mention that the battery capacity warranty terms in the owner manual for the 2015 have exactly the same wording as the supplemental capacity warranty Nissan sent out to the original 2011 and 2012 owners before we received any information about the class action.

Gerry

 

[sub3marathonman]

I got my information straight from the courts. If you were not one of those that were mailed the packet in 2013, You are not part of the class and therefore the original warranty applies. Could the court settlement people be giving out the wrong info? Possibly, but that's Information they're giving out.

Am I the only one seeing irony in this? Nissan sent out the 9-bar capacity warranty information to original owners long before the plaintif attorneys sent the information about the class action. The sleazy attorneys implied that the supplemental capacity warranty from Nissan was part of the class action and an owner would have no capacity warranty if he/she opted out of the settlement. I was in the process of getting a new battery under Nissan's supplemental capacity warranty when I received the class action package.

Gerry

I remember the timeline that way too, although at that time from my understanding it was really only the pledge to restore the car to 9 capacity bars. It was also my impression that it was not a legal requirement for Nissan, just more of a customer satisfaction pledge. Now it is my understanding that Nissan is legally required to replace an underperforming original battery with a new latest-technology battery. But I was wondering if there is any restriction on how soon it must be replaced upon finding out about qualifying, as long as it is done before the 5-year, 60K mile limits when the car was placed into service.

I was also wondering, from a legal standpoint now after this settlement, is it an "If you don't ask we won't tell" situation? Or is Nissan legally required, something similar to a safety recall, to notify people if they qualify for the warranty and battery replacement when they see the results of the annual battery test?

 

[JPWhite]

I was also wondering, from a legal standpoint now after this settlement, is it an "If you don't ask we won't tell" situation? Or is Nissan legally required, something similar to a safety recall, to notify people if they qualify for the warranty and battery replacement when they see the results of the annual battery test?

Even if you ask you may not get a correct response.

I took my 2011 SL to the dealer for the 75,000 mile service interval this week. I asked them to provide me with a quote on a new battery since completing my commute has become challenging and will only get worse as we head into winter. The adviser said they had just replaced their first LEAF battery the week before, the vehicle was brand new. I felt better that I wouldn't be their first.

The service adviser responded to my request for a quote and said that since I had purchased an extended warranty to 100,000 miles I was covered for any failures of the battery. I responded that since it was degraded I had already passed the 60,000 capacity warranty. No your covered to 100,000 miles was the response. I stopped the argument and they agreed to test the battery and advise me accordingly. On picking up the car I was advised that if I waited until the 4th capacity bar went out I'd get a new battery under warranty. I did not receive a quote. The 4th capacity bar probably won't go out this winter and I'm still left without a quote for replacement.

I'll contact another dealer to get my quote.

Dealers don't know but a fraction of what we do about the capacity warranty (unless they are in Arizona or South Cal). Ask all you like, you may not get a good response.

 

[Evoforce]

For those of you who want to summarily dismissed what I've been saying, keep in mind that I have been in contact with this court concerning this lawsuit many times in an effort to make sure that my two automobiles are part of this class so I can obtain the benefits of this class. I had been and have been actively pursuing answers to particular questions that are concerning me. So, anyone can try to dismiss anything they want to about what I'm parroting to you from the court system. I doubt that anyone has worked as hard as I have to try to come up with the answers to my concerns. I am still actively pursuing these answers and expect a call even today on Tuesday back from them again. Furthermore, I will continue to inform this forum what I unearth or what information is given to me. For those that want to have theory or conjecture, fine, but I'm searching for facts. I am just as confounded by what they have said and done since the inception of my doing my personal dance with them. I have personally been given conflicting information and I'm the type to root out what the truth is... Stay tuned

 

[Evoforce]

As of Friday, they had not yet started to send out settlement benefits. Today I did not receive a call back but I'm giving them till the end of the week. Hopefully this will escalate up to the level of their personnel with the ability
to accurately answer my more complex questions. Keep in mind I have already queried at this level and get conflicting statements.

 

[Evoforce]

Quote="Leafer77"]Regardless of what the replacement policy is Individual cells are not being replaced. Their Nissan Leaf technician's are trained to only replace the entire battery pack and they are only given a full battery pack.[/quote]

I was at a monthly meeting of our local electric vehicle association held at ASU. One of our guest speakers is a expert battery technician from Nissan. He stated that he had done many repairs to the battery modules including cell replacements.

I am saying, I believe they will replace my battery on my 9 bar car with the lizard because that is what we have been witnessing. After all, I have one vehicle that has been done already, but the settlement people are saying that Nissans policy is to repair it to a minimum of 9 bars if it drops to 8 within the warranty period going forward at this point. I think the court settlement people are giving out the wrong information... I am still working on more conformation to clear this up.

Also, keep in mind that they have told me this, because I was not the owner of these two cars when the original settlement package was mailed in 2013.

I tried my hardest to get the opt in paperwork of which they failed to send after two attempts. I didn't sweat it that hard at the time, because I felt I would automatically be opted in anyway, because my vehicles as far as I knew, had not been opted out. I also had given them over the phone, all of the pertinent information to make it possible, to show that I was the new owner of the two vehicles and what theIr VIN numbers were, including my address to have the other benefits mailed to.

 

[mwalsh]

I think the court settlement people are giving out the wrong information.

I think this is very likely too.

I also don't think anyone with a valid warranty claim will ever get a refurbished battery pack, no matter the circumstances. I could be proved wrong on this, but I very much doubt it.

 

[Leafer77]

quote="Leafer77"]Regardless of what the replacement policy is Individual cells are not being replaced. Their Nissan Leaf technician's are trained to only replace the entire battery pack and they are only given a full battery pack.

I was at a monthly meeting of our local electric vehicle association held at ASU. One of our guest speakers is a expert battery technician from Nissan. He stated that he had done many repairs to the battery modules including cell replacements.

I am saying, I believe they will replace my battery on my 9 bar car with the lizard because that is what we have been witnessing. After all, I have one vehicle that has been done already, but the settlement people are saying that Nissans policy is to repair it to a minimum of 9 bars if it drops to 8 within the warranty period going forward at this point. I think the court settlement people are giving out the wrong information... I am still working on more conformation to clear this up.

Also, keep in mind that they have told me this, because I was not the owner of these two cars when the original settlement package was mailed in 2013.

I tried my hardest to get the opt in paperwork of which they failed to send after two attempts. I didn't sweat it that hard at the time, because I felt I would automatically be opted in anyway, because my vehicles as far as I knew, had not been opted out. I also had given them over the phone, all of the pertinent information to make it possible, to show that I was the new owner of the two vehicles and what theIr VIN numbers were, including my address to have the other benefits mailed to.[/quote]

My vehicle's battery was replaced outside the warranty and I was given a replacement battery pack. Before they replaced my battery pack, I was concerned that they were only going to repair it up to 9 capacity bars. The reply I received is that we don't replace individual cells and that they are trained to only replace the entire battery pack.