JPWhite said:
Evoforce said:
I told them that I thought they were wrong and that Nissan has already been summarily changing out the warranty batteries for new. They insisted that if I was not an owner who was sent a packet in September 2013, my cars do not qualify for the lizard battery..
I think you are mixing the law and business practice.
The court is right. Nissan are only *legally required* to repair up to 9 bars.
The business practice Nissan have demonstrated to date is that they replace with new Lizard batteries. They could at any moment start repairing to 9 bars only and still comply with the law. The fact that Nissan are exceeding their legal requirement does NOT mean the court are wrong, or anyone here is wrong. It is what it is.
You need to separate in your mind the legal minimum requirement and the actual business practice.
Does this mean you will get a brand new lizard battery under warranty if your car drops to 8 bars inside 5 years/60,000 miles? Maybe, maybe not.
The court approved settlement is what is legally required now. What Nissan did or did not do in the past is a moot point. What the previously agreed settlement required is now a moot point. The only way to know what is legally required now is to read the settlement:
http://classaction.kccllc.net/content.aspx?c=5619&sh=1
TimLee has stated that he has read the settlement, so he might be able to add additional information I've overlooked, as could others who have read it. I have read parts of the settlement, but will quote the applicable sections.
1) Definitions All terms used in this Amendment shall have the same defined meanings as set forth in 1 - 26 of the Settlement Agreement unless modified below. Section 8 defines the referenced "Settlement Agreement" as the Settlement Agreement entered into by the Parties on July 8, 2013, including all exhibits attached to it.
The previous Settlement Agreement (7/8/13) definitions start on page 3 of 61. On that same page, 2) "Class Vehicle(s) means 2011-2012 model year Nissan LEAF vehicles sold or leased in the United States, including Puerto Rico.
That definition (#2 Class Vehicle(s)) was not changed in the final settlement. Therefore, while I must state that I am not an attorney, and this is not legal advice, it seems clear to me that the Settlement Agreement covers all 2011 - 2012 Nissan LEAF vehicles, unless the owner of a LEAF has opted out.
So when Evoforce contacts the court, I hope they will state where in the Settlement Agreement it distinguishes between vehicles based on original ownership.
Now, in my opinion it seems clear to me that JPWhite is also completely incorrect, based on the court approved Settlement Agreement.
Quoting from the (Final Court Approved) Settlement Agreement Page 2:
"WHEREAS, under the Settlement Term Sheet, the new Lithium-ion Battery Capacity Coverage was to cover any repairs or replacement needed to return battery capacity to a level of nine remaining bars on the vehicle's battery capacity level gauge.
Quoting from the (Final Court Approved) Settlement Agreement Page 2:
"WHEREAS, Plaintiffs and NNA believe the Settlement Agreement preliminary approved by the court is fair, adequate, and reasonable, and that the objections to the Settlement Agreement were unfounded and incorrect, but nevertheless continued discussions in an effort to address concerns raised by the objectors."
Page 2 states that both parties agreed to mediation to address the objections to the Settlement Agreement preliminary.
On Page 2 it states that Objector Kozinski appeared in person, and Objector Vo by phone.
Quoting the important part on Page 3:
"WHEREAS, because Nissan desires to further enhance customer satisfaction
n to those who were early adopters of electric vehicle technology, and the Parties desire to add value for the Class and address concerns raised by objectors, the Parties agreed to modify the Settlement Agreement, conditioned upon final approval of the Amended Settlement, as follows: "
On Page 4:
ADDITIONAL RELIEF TO SETTLEMENT CLASS MEMBERS
9. The term "Lithium-ion Battery Capacity Coverage" as used in 8 of the Settlement Agreement is revised to mean "new coverage, added to and made a part of the 2011 and 2012 Nissan New Electric Vehicle Limited Warranty, against capacity loss below nine bars of capacity , as shown on the vehicle's battery capacity level gauge, for a period of 60 months or 60,000 miles, whichever occurs first. If a Nissan dealer confirms capacity below nine bars as shown on the vehicle's battery capacity level gauge within the warranty period,
NNA will replace the vehicle's battery. (bold added) The replacement battery will be the 24kWh lithium-ion battery that is currently used in the 2015 model year LEAF (or the most current model year 24kWh lithium-ion battery at the time of replacement)."
And, once again, there is no reference to an original owner, only an addition to the 2011 and 2012 Nissan New Electric Vehicle Limited Warranty.
And finally, it is obvious that without the objections of Mr. Kozinski and Mr. Vo, this additional requirement to replace the vehicle's battery, instead of restore it to nine capacity bars, would never have happened.
