BudRaymond
Posts: 95
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 5:34 pm
Delivery Date: 07 May 2011
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Amended Settlement in Klee v. Nissan

Wed Oct 14, 2015 3:05 pm

JPWhite wrote:
sub3marathonman wrote:
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.


I like your optimism, but remember the warranty replacement pack would be paid for by Nissan Corporate. I expect that when the dealership called to get authorization for the $5500 pack replacement, Nissan would explain their error.
eTec Blue Ocean
56k miles
9th bar dropped 9/2015

User avatar
JPWhite
Gold Member
Posts: 1753
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 3:41 pm
Delivery Date: 30 Jul 2011
Leaf Number: 5734
Location: Hendersonville TN
Contact: Website WLM Yahoo Messenger AOL

Re: Amended Settlement in Klee v. Nissan

Wed Oct 14, 2015 4:46 pm

BudRaymond wrote:[quote="

I like your optimism, but remember the warranty replacement pack would be paid for by Nissan Corporate. I expect that when the dealership called to get authorization for the $5500 pack replacement, Nissan would explain their error.


The optimism isn't mine, it's the dealers. I went looking for a quote not a free battery.

i agree they will find out the truth when the time comes and call for approval. I may have already replaced via another dealer before that can happen.
--
JP White
http://jpwhitenissanleaf.com
Blue SL-e, Res 4/22/10, Ord 3/29/11, Del 7/30/11
110,000 Miles.
Lost 5 Capacity bars
7/18/13 (29,206), 8/25/14 (51,728), 7/12/15 (71.108), 5/12/16 (88,362), 10/17/16 (96,532)
New Battery 12/3/16 (98,956)

Evoforce
Posts: 645
Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2015 9:58 pm
Delivery Date: 28 Feb 2015
Location: Fountain Hills Arizona

Re: Amended Settlement in Klee v. Nissan

Fri Oct 16, 2015 1:57 am

So... Here is a summary. If you are a member of the class (one of the 19,000ish original owners/lessors of a 2011-2012 Nissan Leaf who were sent a packet in September 2013 and did not opt out) you will be entitled to a charge card or a $50 check and a warranty replacement of your traction battery if your car is at 8 capacity bars (or lower) within 60 months/60,000 miles. A new 24Kw 2015 or latest equivalent battery will be supplied.

If you are not a member of the class (someone who didn't receive a packet September 2013 and purchased/leased their 2011-2012 after September 2013) you are not considered a class member and receive no benefit of this lawsuit. However, Nissan publicly announced a battery capacity warranty of 60 months/60,000 miles that would repair vehicles to a minimum of 9 bar status (sole and separate of this lawsuit) to give customers satisfaction. This is the information that the Court Settlement Administration is giving to Leaf owners.

That said, for all warranties since the 2015 improved chemistry battery (lizard) that was released in the last quarter of 2014, Nissan as a business practice, has up to this point been replacing all warranty claims with new replacement (lizard) battery. Since this suit is freshly settled, we can only hope that they will continue to give better customer satisfaction, by continuing to replace with new batteries and not repair to a minimum of 9 bars.

On a personal note... I have a car that is on the cusp of needing a warranty settlement. I am an owner that purchased two 2011 Leaf's after September 2013. I am excluded from the class of Klee versus Nissan. The lawsuit occurred because people were not satisfied with the lack of warranty that Nissan did not put fourth. Nissan would only risk another lawsuit, from owners in my situation, if they were to actually revert back to repairing substandard chemistry batteries and only guaranteeing to 9 bar capacity. Their business practice, for at least a year, has been to replace all warranty eligible cars with new (lizard) batteries rather than repair battery traction packs. Their legal obligation is to repair for those of us who are not class members.

Now comes the decision making process for people in my situation. Will Nissan continue with their business practice? This suit is freshly settled, time will tell...

In tracking the degradation on my 9 bar car, it appears that it will qualify for a warranty months before my warranty expires. I was going to drive this vehicle close to expiration just to save starting on the next. But with this development, as soon as it qualifies, it will be going for hopefully new replacement because we all know that business practices can change over time...

On a side note, My lizard car and my 9 bar car appear to be degrading at he same rate here in Arizona. Since my 9 bar car will soon be 8 bar car, I will not be able to track this much longer. Let us hope that the lizard is (truly) better over time. Please note that we really like our cars but range and battery degradation are major concerns.
Last edited by Evoforce on Fri Oct 16, 2015 3:47 am, edited 3 times in total.
*2011 Leaf 1 bought 2/28/15 @ 28,000ish mi 10 bar (8 bars @ 11/25/15 @ 37,453 ) (New lizard @ 39,275 mi @ 1/20/2016) Now 52,166 mi.
*Tesla Model S 61,000 mi
*2011 Leaf 2 bought 4/28/15 @ 24,000ish mi 12 bar (new lizard Dec. 2014 @ 22,273 mi) Now 35,485 mi

TimLee
Posts: 2810
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2011 9:40 am
Delivery Date: 17 May 2011
Leaf Number: 2026
Location: Chattanooga, TN

Re: Amended Settlement in Klee v. Nissan

Fri Oct 16, 2015 2:43 am

Evoforce wrote:... The lawsuit occurred because people were not satisfied with the warranty that Nissan put fourth. ...

Incorrect.

The lawsuit was filed long before Nissan offered any capacity warranty.

The Nissan repair to 9 bars capacity warranty was only given out as their first negotiated settlement of the class action.

Tim Lee
Chattanooga, TN

Man. Date: 03/10/11, VIN # 2026
Delivered 05-17-2011
Blue Ocean, 2011 SL-eTec

Evoforce
Posts: 645
Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2015 9:58 pm
Delivery Date: 28 Feb 2015
Location: Fountain Hills Arizona

Re: Amended Settlement in Klee v. Nissan

Fri Oct 16, 2015 3:16 am

TimLee wrote:
Evoforce wrote:... The lawsuit occurred because people were not satisfied with the warranty that Nissan put fourth. ...

Incorrect.

The lawsuit was filed long before Nissan offered any capacity warranty.

The Nissan repair to 9 bars capacity warranty was only given out as their first negotiated settlement of the class action.


Or I could have worded it as lack of warranty at first...


Yes, but they offered up the warranty to quell. And whether you want to call it a warranty or a business practice that is what the courts says they are doing. So if you have any hard facts to the contrary as to what the courts are now saying, that would be more productive than how you are trying to appear to discredit.
*2011 Leaf 1 bought 2/28/15 @ 28,000ish mi 10 bar (8 bars @ 11/25/15 @ 37,453 ) (New lizard @ 39,275 mi @ 1/20/2016) Now 52,166 mi.
*Tesla Model S 61,000 mi
*2011 Leaf 2 bought 4/28/15 @ 24,000ish mi 12 bar (new lizard Dec. 2014 @ 22,273 mi) Now 35,485 mi

User avatar
JPWhite
Gold Member
Posts: 1753
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 3:41 pm
Delivery Date: 30 Jul 2011
Leaf Number: 5734
Location: Hendersonville TN
Contact: Website WLM Yahoo Messenger AOL

Re: Amended Settlement in Klee v. Nissan

Fri Oct 16, 2015 3:44 am

Evoforce wrote:
TimLee wrote:
Evoforce wrote:... The lawsuit occurred because people were not satisfied with the warranty that Nissan put fourth. ...

Incorrect.

The lawsuit was filed long before Nissan offered any capacity warranty.

The Nissan repair to 9 bars capacity warranty was only given out as their first negotiated settlement of the class action.


Or I could have worded it as lack of warranty at first...


Yes, but they offered up the warranty to quell. And whether you want to call it a warranty or a business practice that is what the courts says they are doing. So if you have any hard facts to the contrary as to what the courts are now saying, that would be more productive than how you are trying to appear to discredit.


Had the batteries turned out to be 'bullet proof'. No lawsuits would have been filed over inadequate warranty.

The issue isn't the warranty, the issue is the batteries are not suitable for purpose. Had Nissan taken a different and more responsive approach to those 2011/12 owners (tucking them into bed at night as Jack Ricard suggested) there would have been no lawsuit either.

Poor product + poor customer service = lawsuit.

Warranties are not created to protect owners, but to protect future sales in the light of uncertainty, warranted or otherwise.
--
JP White
http://jpwhitenissanleaf.com
Blue SL-e, Res 4/22/10, Ord 3/29/11, Del 7/30/11
110,000 Miles.
Lost 5 Capacity bars
7/18/13 (29,206), 8/25/14 (51,728), 7/12/15 (71.108), 5/12/16 (88,362), 10/17/16 (96,532)
New Battery 12/3/16 (98,956)

Evoforce
Posts: 645
Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2015 9:58 pm
Delivery Date: 28 Feb 2015
Location: Fountain Hills Arizona

Re: Amended Settlement in Klee v. Nissan

Fri Oct 16, 2015 4:09 am

We all know that bullet proof and batteries would rarely be in the same sentence, but poor product + poor service = lawsuit is common
*2011 Leaf 1 bought 2/28/15 @ 28,000ish mi 10 bar (8 bars @ 11/25/15 @ 37,453 ) (New lizard @ 39,275 mi @ 1/20/2016) Now 52,166 mi.
*Tesla Model S 61,000 mi
*2011 Leaf 2 bought 4/28/15 @ 24,000ish mi 12 bar (new lizard Dec. 2014 @ 22,273 mi) Now 35,485 mi

TimLee
Posts: 2810
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2011 9:40 am
Delivery Date: 17 May 2011
Leaf Number: 2026
Location: Chattanooga, TN

Re: Amended Settlement in Klee v. Nissan

Fri Oct 16, 2015 4:18 am

Evoforce wrote:... So if you have any hard facts to the contrary as to what the courts are now saying, that would be more productive than how you are trying to appear to discredit.

Your summary of what the court has told you was excellent and informative.

I am not attempting to discredit it, only disagree with the one sentence that was completely inaccurate.

Once Nissan saw that their defective product was becoming a disaster, and that selling such product with zero capacity warranty was untenable, and in light of the lawsuit they needed to settle as cheaply as possible; they switched to offering a pathetic repair to nine bars capacity warranty.

Lose 33.75% of your capacity, they repair to nine bars.
72.5% of original capacity.

Only the class get replacement as long as they did not Opt Out or Opted Back In.
Everyone else is only warranted for nine bar repair.
Including all the 2013 forward LEAFs.

Tim Lee
Chattanooga, TN

Man. Date: 03/10/11, VIN # 2026
Delivered 05-17-2011
Blue Ocean, 2011 SL-eTec

Evoforce
Posts: 645
Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2015 9:58 pm
Delivery Date: 28 Feb 2015
Location: Fountain Hills Arizona

Re: Amended Settlement in Klee v. Nissan

Fri Oct 16, 2015 4:33 am

Thank-you for clarifying. Also, I did not know that 13's forward were repair to 9 bars. What has Nissan actually been doing or have no cars hit the warranty yet?
*2011 Leaf 1 bought 2/28/15 @ 28,000ish mi 10 bar (8 bars @ 11/25/15 @ 37,453 ) (New lizard @ 39,275 mi @ 1/20/2016) Now 52,166 mi.
*Tesla Model S 61,000 mi
*2011 Leaf 2 bought 4/28/15 @ 24,000ish mi 12 bar (new lizard Dec. 2014 @ 22,273 mi) Now 35,485 mi

sub3marathonman
Posts: 306
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2010 11:57 am
Delivery Date: 31 Mar 2012
Location: Bartow, FL

Re: Amended Settlement in Klee v. Nissan

Fri Oct 16, 2015 9:16 am

TimLee wrote:
Evoforce wrote:... So if you have any hard facts to the contrary as to what the courts are now saying, that would be more productive ...



Your summary of what the court has told you was excellent and informative.

...

Only the class get replacement as long as they did not Opt Out or Opted Back In.
Everyone else is only warranted for nine bar repair.
Including all the 2013 forward LEAFs.


OK, I'm hoping that TimLee or somebody will explain again, so maybe I can understand it. Because I keep thinking "the class" applies to vehicles, not owners, whether original purchasers or not.

Evoforce purchased a 2011 LEAF, as a used car after 9/2013. No settlement had been approved at that time. The proposed, and later adopted language, as I understand it, is "Class Vehicle(s) means 2011-2012 model year Nissan LEAF vehicles sold or leased in the United States, including Puerto Rico. " So even if I was thinking of purchasing a used 2011 or 2012 model year LEAF in 9/2013, I would think the vehicle was a "Class Vehicle." So why is Evoforce's LEAF not a "Class Vehicle?" Is there specific language excluding those LEAFs? The class settlement, as far as I can tell, applies to the "Class Vehicles," with further proof being the dreaded opt out code B0133 that seems to follow a vehicle, not an owner. If Evoforce so chooses to answer, is his 9-bar LEAF one of the opted-out LEAFs with the B0133 code?

Here is a thread about the B0133 code (I haven't read all entries): http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?t=17045

Then, it is stated that the now approved settlement is "an addition to the 2011 and 2012 Nissan New Electric Vehicle Limited Warranty." So if that is true, why doesn't that warranty apply to all 2011 and 2012 LEAFs, used or original owners? It doesn't seem possible, but is the "Nissan New Electric Vehicle Limited Warranty" not transferable to the next owner? Is this a new separate warranty that really isn't a supplement to the original warranty, as printed in the Warranty Information Booklet given at the time of purchase back in 2011 and 2012?

And finally, if Evoforce or anybody else does experience this situation, wouldn't their option be to sue Nissan themselves? Wouldn't Nissan thus find themselves back in a similar quandary? Wouldn't it cost Nissan more to defend Evoforce's lawsuit than to just live up to the settlement? And in the end, isn't it very possible that Nissan would lose such a lawsuit?

Return to “General / Main Owners Forum”