Amended Settlement in Klee v. Nissan

[Valdemar]

A new opt out notice is mentioned in the quote I pasted above. I guess we just have to wait and see.

But the quote is Mike's guess.
..snip..

No, the quote is from the linked document, last paragraph on page 3 (pdf doc page 4). It sounds like a new opt-out notice will be issued, by my interpretation anyway:

Once the stay is lifted, the parties in tend to submit the proposed opt-out notice and a proposed schedule for presenting the Settlement, as amended, to the Court for approval, including the deadline to file a renewed motion for final approval of class action settlement and related briefing.

 

[TimLee]

... No, the quote is from the linked document, last paragraph on page 3 (pdf doc page 4). It sounds like a new opt-out notice will be issued, by my interpretation anyway:

Once the stay is lifted, the parties in tend to submit the proposed opt-out notice and a proposed schedule for presenting the Settlement, as amended, to the Court for approval, including the deadline to file a renewed motion for final approval of class action settlement and related briefing.

But earlier in the document it says the Opt Out is for those that previously Opted Out properly.
We will have to see what the court does.

 

[Armand]

Now that it looks like we'll all be opting back in (or most of us)...[/quote]

I expect to lose my 4th bar just after the end of the warranty period. I haven't seen an advantage for me to opt in this time. Am I in the minority? If that's the case, the prospects for those like me, appear very dim. If judge Kozinski couldn't get a better deal, I doubt I could do better. On the other hand, $50 buys a few cans of beer. Pays for a small celebration decisions decisions...

 

[mwalsh]

I expect to lose my 4th bar just after the end of the warranty period. I haven't seen an advantage for me to opt in this time. Am I in the minority?

I may actually be looking at the situation though my own semi-rose-tinted glasses too much. Sorry about that. You've just reminded me that many will still miss the warranty period by a hair (as was probably expected by Nissan when they conceived the warranty). Actually, it's not even guaranteed for me - I may still have to work hard in making sure I loose bar 9 before this year is out.

 

[mwalsh]

I guess I'm staying out again now. The P3227 update "added" 7AHr to my car. There is no way now I loose bar 9 by the warranty expiration on my car.

 

[kolmstead]

Any change in number of capacity bars showing, Mike?

-Karl

 

[TomT]

I am in the same boat and agree completely!

I expect to lose my 4th bar just after the end of the warranty period. I haven't seen an advantage for me to opt in this time. Am I in the minority? If that's the case, the prospects for those like me, appear very dim. If judge Kozinski couldn't get a better deal, I doubt I could do better.

 

[mwalsh]

Any change in number of capacity bars showing, Mike?

-Karl

Nope. Which makes me sort wish now that I'd waited until after I lost the 9th bar. Though I suspect that Nissan might have forced a capacity bar reset if I had.

 

[edatoakrun]

I guess I'm staying out again now. The P3227 update "added" 7AHr to my car. There is no way now I loose bar 9 by the warranty expiration on my car.

Sure you can.

http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=13273&start=520" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Calm down, those gids will probably start dropping like flies, just like they did for everyone else following the update.

The update has no effect on actual available battery capacity, and if it reduces the phantom capacity loss reported in the long-term, it's probably not enough to keep you from dropping another bar by next winter.

Further illustration of why there is no rational reason to take the LBC (gid) capacity report seriously, as an indication of actual available or total battery capacity in the first place.

Of course Nissan doesn't guarantee actual capacity, just nine of those idiot bars on the dash.

 

[mwalsh]

Sure you can.

http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=13273&start=520" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Of course Nissan doesn't guarantee actual capacity, just nine of those idiot bars on the dash.

Interesting. Either I'd forgotten seeing that, or never saw it. He only "gained" 3AHr though, even though it was only a couple of months before it was lost again. I've got to dump the 7AHr plus another 2AHr before I'm where I need to be.

 

[edatoakrun]

Sure you can.

http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=13273&start=520" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Of course Nissan doesn't guarantee actual capacity, just nine of those idiot bars on the dash.

Interesting. Either I'd forgotten seeing that, or never saw it. He only "gained" 3AHr though, even though it was only a couple of months before it was lost again. I've got to dump the 7AHr plus another 2AHr before I'm where I need to be.

Why don't you post on the On-topic thread?

Been meaning to myself, but if it makes you feel any better, I'll mention now that (edit) the update added ~7% "capacity" (from ~20% to ~13% LBC reported capacity loss) last July, and ~ 6 months later, I have "lost" another ~10% (to nearly 23% LBC reported capacity loss) since.

So I was likely headed toward getting close to the bar warrantee prior to the update, whether my future gid loss matches the rate I had pre-update, will determine whether I still will be.

 

[kolmstead]

Just looked up my P3227 results. 49.6 Ahr one week before, 49.4 immediately after the reprogram, 55.0 one week after. Took two days of charging and driving before P3227 had any measurable effect, and then my battery "gained" 5.4 Ahr. Took six months to drop back down to pre-P3227 number. I assume that Nissan would say that my car was one of those that was reporting an "overly pessimistic" battery capacity loss.

You might still be able to qualify for the warranty. My battery is at 46.2 Ahr, down 8.8 Ahr in twelve months from the post-P3227 figure. It was losing close to 2 Ahr per month during the summer. If necessary, you can park your car in my yard for a couple of months this summer. Amazing what 115 degrees can do!

-karl

 

[keydiver]

If judge Kozinski couldn't get a better deal, I doubt I could do better.

The judge actually doesn't even own that 2011 anymore, so he isn't part of the class. He traded it in for a 2014, then saw that it only charged to 100% all the time, so took it back and got a new 2013 that only had 94% SOH. :roll:

 

[TimLee]

...
The judge actually doesn't even own that 2011 anymore, so he isn't part of the class. He traded it in for a 2014, then saw that it only charged to 100% all the time, so took it back and got a new 2013 that only had 94% SOH. :roll:

You must have one impressive social network in the legal area to get such info :shock: :lol:

Had he already gotten rid of the 2011, when he was the primary party attempting to get a better settlement for the class in the mediation meeting in September 2014 :?:

 

[keydiver]

I never got the feeling that his objection was purely for himself. He seemed to feel that all Leaf owners were getting cheated by the wording of the original settlement, so it was a really bad idea for it to be accepted. I don't know the details of why he got a new Leaf, if it just didn't work anymore for his commute or what, but I was a little disappointed to hear that he got a 2013 that evidently sat a LONG time on the dealer's lot, and was already 6% degraded. Personally, if I had the choice between a new 2014 that only charges to 100% and a 2013 that can do 80/100% but sat in the California sun on a dealer lot for >1 year, maybe at 100% charge, I would have gone with the 2014. Actually, I wouldn't buy either of them, since they both have the older battery chemistry.

 

[TimLee]

I never got the feeling that his objection was purely for himself.

I concur fully.

His opinions expressed in the seminar seem clearly along the lines of much in the legal community in the US, that the effort to streamline and make lawsuits more efficient through the class action process has ended up in some very bad unjust results.

Benefits large corporations, a few "fortunate" "legal" firms, and a few malicious trouble making oportunistic objecting legal firms.

Unfortunately very few other than in this case the judge attempting to stand up for the interests of the class.

And in this case even the two plaintiffs deserve a lot of scorn.
Feel free to tell them what you think in a polite written letter :?

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

IMO a prorated warranty that was based on when you hit 70% would have been fair. 5 years 60k or less would be 100% Nissan, 10 years/120k miles more more would be 100% the owner with linear drop off of Nissan responsibility in between.

Yup, something like that. Who knew Nissan based their estimate on 7500 annual miles in the NW region.

Unfortunately, some of us low mileage drivers in the PNW are already below 80% at 3.5 yrs. I've even babied the pack (10-20 mi/day, 40-60 %SOC most of the time, mostly L1 charging, parking outside the garage in the summer). I would love to find out if ANY batteries ANYWHERE make 80% in 5 yrs.

at 12,000 miles a year, I probably would have made it. had about 13% degradation after nearly 45,000 miles. I would have been up near 70,000

 

[nrgrevolution]

A call out to anyone that can answer please. I've read all posts on all 10 pages and I'm still a little confused.

I'm an original and current owner of the 2011 leaf here in Phoenix. Just over 38,000 miles and 9 bars showing with a 5 years of ownership (not a lease) up on June 3,2016.

Is it currently accurate to state that Nissan must bring battery capacity back above 70% (9 or more bars) any vehicle that falls below before 5 years/60,000 miles?

or are they now saying a brand new battery replacement of the latest technology available at the time of replacement?

If so, is the hot weather (lizard) battery out yet?

if not does it have a target release date?

Thanks in advance to anyone that can help clear this up.
Donna in North Phoenix

 

[mwalsh]

Is it currently accurate to state that Nissan must bring battery capacity back above 70% (9 or more bars) any vehicle that falls below before 5 years/60,000 miles?

or are they now saying a brand new battery replacement of the latest technology available at the time of replacement?

If so, is the hot weather (lizard) battery out yet?

The lizard battery is the only battery currently available new.

We have yet to see what washes out of the actual revised settlement. It would appear (from my interpretation at least) that a new battery of the latest technology will be used for all replacements going forward.

 

[hill]

Is it currently accurate to state that Nissan must bring battery capacity back above 70% (9 or more bars) any vehicle that falls below before 5 years/60,000 miles?

or are they now saying a brand new battery replacement of the latest technology available at the time of replacement?

If so, is the hot weather (lizard) battery out yet?

The lizard battery is the only battery currently available new.

We have yet to see what washes out of the actual revised settlement. It would appear (from my interpretation at least) that a new battery of the latest technology will be used for all replacements going forward.

So it's kinda better just to buy an entirely new pack (especially if you need the range), than work it under warranty, which may well just be getting a few modules replaced that barely pulls the pack up a few gids.
.