B0133 NO BATT CAPACITY WARRANTY

[LTLFTcomposite]

I don't think Nissan is going to win against someone who received this letter and warranty sticker but also opted out of the class action.

I'll be giving my future business to somebody who values me as a customer and is committed to my satisfaction, not somebody I can "win against".

 

[JeremyW]

As some of you may know, I leased my vehicle. I will call the Nissan EV line today to verify if B0133 sticks with the car after I return it at the end of my lease.

I just called the 877-NOGASEV line and The B0133 NO BATT CAPACITY WARRANTY IS TIED TO THE VIN

Sucks for whoever buys my car next. :evil: None of this feels legal. At all. Updating the first page with this info...

 

[mwalsh]

I just called the 877-NOGASEV line and The B0133 NO BATT CAPACITY WARRANTY IS TIED TO THE VIN

Sucks for whoever buys my car next. :evil: None of this feels legal. At all. Updating the first page with this info...

So my car is a person now? Like corporations? Can it make political contributons?

 

[JeremyW]

Again, I have no idea if this is even legal. It sure doesn't feel like it. :?

I'm done with Nissan. So done.

 

[mwalsh]

I'm pretty sure my car can't enter into a binding legal agreement. Or opt out of one.

 

[Weatherman]

It seems like there's only two possible explanations for this...

Either Nissan is so desperate to reduce their ever-increasing costs for swapping out batteries that they are trying to find any excuse they can to deny the warranty (you didn't get your battery checks done on time, or you opted out of the law suit).

Or, this is a perfect example of Hanlon's razor.

Either case, it shows an incredible level of incompetence.

 

[LTLFTcomposite]

...so desperate to reduce their ever-increasing costs for swapping out batteries that they are trying to find any excuse they can to deny the warranty...

Put this together with the no published price for battery replacement and it leaves you wondering if that battery is verrrry 'spensive... like maybe the 15 grand number that was originally tossed around. Cranking out Leafs to garner CARB and tax credits is fine and dandy but big warranty costs could really change the equation.

 

[Weatherman]

I only brought up that example because I'm encountering the same issue with Enphase. They make microinverters for solar panel arrays. Their m190 model has a significant defect and many (as much as 30% in just a couple of years) have been swapped out under their 15-year warranty. After I opened my latest case with Enphase, instead of agreeing to swap out the defective units, they started to make excuses that the degradation I'm seeing is "normal" (sound familiar?) and they won't swap the units out.

Nissan and Enphase. Two peas in a pod.

 

[keydiver]

I just had an interesting conversation with a representative from Capstone, the law firm handing the case against Nissan. A lot of the confusion, he explained, is that most of us don't know the whole timeline of the case. The settlement was actually reached in September 2012. In December 2012, he says that Nissan announced that due to the suit they would be issuing a revised/new capacity warranty. It took them 6 months, but they finally mailed out the new EV Battery Capacity Warranty in June 2013. Although the letter doesn't mention it at all, the warranty was directly tied to the settlement reached in the class action suit. (We were *supposed* to know this because of the December letter/notice). The court ordered the notices to go out to all Leaf owners in July/August 2013. To many of us, who know nothing of class action suits, it appeared that the suit was just beginning, or at least a settlement was about to be reached, but that was not at all the case. The case was already settled, and we just had to decide if we wanted to stay as part of the class.
My misunderstanding was mostly due to some "bad verbiage", as he put it, that said the warranty from the settlement was "the same" as the one Nissan mailed me. I took "the same" as meaning "equal to, or equivalent", but in this case what they meant to say was that the warranty you would receive from the settlement WAS IN FACT the new Nissan EV Battery Capacity Warranty. :shock: So, by opting out, I was rejecting the new warranty, and keeping my options open for a future lawsuit. That was certainly never the case, as I was happy with the new warranty, so I had no desire to sue them, and I was looking forward to a fresh start with Nissan next year when I lose my 4th bar and get a new battery.
I do still have one glimmer of hope, although the opt-out/opt-in process is closed: he offered to write to Nissan and explain my misunderstanding. He said that if both parties agree to it, they may allow me to opt back in.
I'll keep you posted if I hear anything.

 

[JeremyW]

But how does the above work if I'm leasing? I don't actually own the car.

 

[mwalsh]

In December 2012, he says that Nissan announced that due to the suit they would be issuing a revised/new capacity warranty.

Errm...no they didn't. There was no mention of a lawsuit in the December communication from Nissan. It's posted right here on the board:

http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?p=253595" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Thanks for talking with them, but it's all as clear as mud.

Edit: Actually, some abstract "lawsuit" (that I don't think we knew anything about at the time, with the possible exception of Tony Williams, reading between the lines in his post) was mentioned in passing in the Q&A, but it doesn't mention that the battery capacity warranty was one of the remedies Nissan implemented to satisfy the plaintiffs.

 

[TomT]

I believe everyone did receive it and I even put the sticker in my owner's manual per the letter... So, Nissan clearly appears to think that they can win...

I done't think that anyone who received this letter and warranty sticker needs to worry about whether they opted out or not. This letter doesn't connect the warranty to the settlement and clearly says that 2011 and 2012 owners will get an expanded warranty. I don't think Nissan is going to win against someone who received this letter and warranty sticker but also opted out of the class action.

 

[GRA]

You know, it strikes me that this might be a good time for owners/lessees to contact some local and/or national TV stations/news organizations/members of congress, especially with all the goodwill and positive PR that major car corporations are generating with the public and congress right now. If the bad PR got Nissan to offer the warranty in the first place, you've got to wonder what exposing this attempt at a take-back on more than just a regional basis might have.

As to 'bad wording' being the explanation, golly, maybe they should have employed lawyers to write it? Unless you assume that LEAF owners and lessees are all supposed to be clairvoyant, and thus know that a class action settlement is under way as well as the terms of that settlement, despite no public announcement of either.

Before, I just thought that Nissan was totally incompetent. Now, it's clear that they've been acting according to plan all along. I'm sure Andy Palmer, Bill Brockman and others at Nissan who've been economical with the truth over the past few years will happily cash their bonus checks.

 

[kubel]

So, you expect Nissan wants to incur the far higher costs (not to mention the publicity arising out of multiple lawsuits) of settling the few dozen (or more?) claims of the opt-out 2011-12 owners who actually lose four capacity bars before they reach 60 months/60 k miles, by buying back and destroying their LEAFs, rather than just honoring the warranty at very little cost by replacing their eight-capacity-bar-batteries with nine-capacity-bar-or-better used batteries?

Well, I suppose it is possible that the Nissan will display psychotic behavior in this case, rather than the sociopathic behavior more typical of corporations...

Consider this hypothetical scenario:

I'm a B0133 LEAF owner. Nissan, in good faith, decides to honor the warranty, even though I opted out of the settlement. My battery degrades and I qualify for battery service. They spend $5000 on a new battery pack, and send me on my way.

Problem solved, right? Wrong.

3 years later my pack is EOL again, except this time my LEAF is 6 years old, outside of the capacity warranty, but within the timeframe that Nissan initially suggested the battery would be good for (more than 10 years). I call up my lawyer and sue Nissan for $15,000.

Altogether, Nissan paid $20,000 due to my double dipping.


If Nissan replaces the batteries of people who have opted out of the settlement, that doesn't eliminate the possibility that these people will come back at Nissan in another 2-3 years with a lawsuit. I think Nissan's legal department sees a greater potential loss from double dipping with a replacement battery AND another lawsuit, compared to just another lawsuit. I don't think it's a psychotic move. I think they have very good business reasons for doing what they are doing. I might not think it's wise from a PR view, but they are limiting their liabilities by not extending you warranty coverage.

 

[kubel]

I believe you have that wrong. As I posted last night (reposted below) It sure looked to me, and still does, that all 2011-12 owners had the capacity warranty prior to the settlement announcement.

I totally agree. But I don't think you can develop that into a lawsuit. The capacity warranty, if it wasn't the result of a settlement, would be nothing more than a good will gesture on Nissan's part. It wasn't something that came with the car, it came after sale, you didn't pay for it, so you would have absolutely no argument in court that you suffered some form of loss by not getting the warranty.

You can sue for separate reasons (early capacity loss when Nissan said battery degradation would level out and last you 10+ years). But I don't think you can make a stink about not getting the warranty, legally speaking.

It certainly looks bad from a PR view though.

Headline: "LEAF owners refuse to join class-action lawsuit against Nissan, Nissan thanks them by voiding their warranty"

 

[mwalsh]

Consider this hypothetical scenario:

I'm a B0133 LEAF owner. Nissan, in good faith, decides to honor the warranty, even though I opted out of the settlement. My battery degrades and I qualify for battery service. They spend $5000 on a new battery pack, and send me on my way.

Problem solved, right? Wrong.

3 years later my pack is EOL again, except this time my LEAF is 6 years old, outside of the capacity warranty, but within the timeframe that Nissan initially suggested the battery would be good for (more than 10 years). I call up my lawyer and sue Nissan for $15,000.

Altogether, Nissan paid $20,000 due to my double dipping.


If Nissan replaces the batteries of people who have opted out of the settlement, that doesn't eliminate the possibility that these people will come back at Nissan in another 2-3 years with a lawsuit. I think Nissan's legal department sees a greater potential loss from double dipping with a replacement battery AND another lawsuit, compared to just another lawsuit. I don't think it's a psychotic move. I think they have very good business reasons for doing what they are doing. I might not think it's wise from a PR view, but they are limiting their liabilities by not extending you warranty coverage.

I don't disagree, but Nissan has muffed this so badly that I don't think they have a legal leg to stand on.

Nor do I think they can legally tie the B0133 opt-out to the car rather than the owner.

 

[kubel]

I don't disagree, but Nissan has muffed this so badly that I don't think they have a legal leg to stand on.

Nor do I think they can legally tie the B0133 opt-out to the car rather than the owner.

The capacity warranty, if it wasn't the outcome of a settlement, was merely a gesture of good will, offered post-sale. You can't sue Nissan for not getting a gesture of good will. You could sue them for their reason for offering the gesture of good will, however (which is a sucky battery). Which is exactly what everyone with a B0133 tied to their VIN should do.

 

[Weatherman]

Tying it to the VIN is, pretty much, a double FUBAR to those who opted out. If they keep it, it's likely they will never get a new battery (unless the SYB program materializes and they choose to take it).

If they try to sell it, any educated buyer, who might have been inclined to buy their three-bars-lost car with a chance of getting a new battery, will pass.


Instant drop in resale value, courtesy of your friends at Nissan.

 

[RonDawg]

I'll be giving my future business to somebody who values me as a customer and is committed to my satisfaction, not somebody I can "win against".

And who might that be?

Toyota? They agreed to pay a $1.2 BILLION fine to the U.S. Government about their handling of the unintended acceleration issue. Meaning, Toyota felt it was better to pay that amount, rather than risk litigation and get stuck with something even worse.

GM? In addition to covering up a safety defect that was discovered before the cars were even put into production, their lawyers are now trying to get out of potential lawsuits over it by saying that the GM that built those cars is legally not the same corporation that now builds the Volt.

Ford? We all know of the infamous Ford Pinto memo that surmised it was cheaper to pay off potential burn victims than recall and retrofit existing cars.

Honda? Well to settle the class action by 2003-2009 Civic Hybrid owners who were given overstated fuel economy numbers, they gave those folks a whopping $100 and anywhere between $500 and $1000 off their next new Honda.

Even the high-end market is not immune from this. Go visit VWVortex's forums and see the complaints from the owners of certain Audi and VW models about how a 21st century engine consuming as much as a quart of oil per 1,000 miles is considered "normal" by VW, or how they paid $2500 to fix a failed electronic control module on the DSG transmission (or worse, about double that amount to replace the whole thing) after the car's 4 year/50k warranty has expired, but well before 100k miles, or how a crappy part for the mechanical (yes in the 21st century) fuel pump causes excessive cam wear.

And if you own a Porsche Boxster, your German performance machine could very well turn into a very large paperweight unless you have $12k to shell out for a new engine, it's covered under the original warranty, or you're one of the few who were extended a warranty by Porsche as part of yet another class-action suit. And if you think Nissan is playing games, here are Porsche's exclusions:

• Cars through 2001-2005 are covered.
• But if they were put in service more than 10 years or 130,000 miles ago, they’re not covered.
• If you bought it used and failed to pay for a Porsche warranty, you are not covered.
• The amount of financial assistance from Porsche is limited and may amount to less than half of the actual costs.
• All the usual Porsche warranty exclusions apply as well.

Source: http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2013/03/porsche-settles-ims-class-action-lawsuit-excludes-my-boxster-s/#more-481766" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'm not defending Nissan. I'm not saying what they did is ethical. What I am saying to those who say "I'm done with Nissan and taking my money to someone else", what makes you think that the other manufacturers, facing a similar situation, will not do something similar or worse?

 

[GRA]

I'll be giving my future business to somebody who values me as a customer and is committed to my satisfaction, not somebody I can "win against".

And who might that be?

<snip lis of corporate bad behavior>

I'm not defending Nissan. I'm not saying what they did is ethical. What I am saying to those who say "I'm done with Nissan and taking my money to someone else", what makes you think that the other manufacturers, facing a similar situation, will not do something similar or worse?

I guess Tesla will be getting a lot of business, at least until they grow a lot bigger and turn into just another bloated corporation that believes ethics are negotiable.