[BowtieRocket]

They also stopped bringing up the mods and have moved on from them being the cause I believe.

[CAM-FIFTY]

Originally Posted by BowtieRocket

They also stopped bringing up the mods and have moved on from them being the cause I believe.

Glad to hear it's getting repaired under warranty

Originally Posted by wavsine

GM can say anything they want but it would be illegal under the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act. The law guarantees that GM has the burden of proving your modification caused the failure. The problem is that GM corporate attorneys will wear you down and leave you broke before they will give in.

GM has covered their a** very well with fine prints because of that law, they won't prove anything to you unless forced by a court. I have still to find a case where any auto manufacturer was actually forced under Magnuson Act to honor a warranty of a mod'd engine.


edit: out of interest I ended up reading the original 1975 law the MMWA, no where does it say that burden is on the GM to prove mod did cause the failure. To me it appears like marketing thing from non-OEM folks to sell their products on the basis of MMWA, I maybe wrong but that's how the law text reads.. Here is a link educate yourself:
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUT...-88-Pg2183.pdf

[Richard0nee]

Originally Posted by BowtieRocket

I spoke with my service adviser this am and he said that they have decided to warranty the repairs, they are unsure what they are at this point, but won't be any cost to me. They have since authorized a rental vehicle for me at no charge as well. I have legally recorded the conversations and have them on file in case they "change their mind" later. I will talk to them more when I go in to pick up the car. My concern is that it won't start intermittenly. That seems like something other than rod knock. And to be clear, the other shop didn't hear any knock.

Awesome news buddy!

I knew the CAI, VTC and Catch can isn't enuff to void it for a rod knock. But if you had oil issues the catch can can be an issue.

[BowtieRocket]

Not sure if the outcome will change if they find another issue other than the rod knock they claim...but we'll see.

[Michigan1LTRS]

Keep the faith brother!

[Frank237]

Good news Jay.
Finally had the time to read the entire thread.

FN

[stook2001]

Originally Posted by Mr. Wyndham

Actually...I do believe that the only case they'll need to prove anything is if the customer takes the issue to court. Even then, I think it's the customer's burden to prove their modifications did not cause the damage.

It's their warranty, and they reserve the right to deny coverage as stated in their disclaimers and exclusions.

But hopefully it won't come to that...

I haven't finished catching up so perhaps this has been corrected already but the burden of proof is on GM in the court. I dont personally believe these types of claims are that difficult to litigate, however, attorneys (particularly good ones) can get expensive fast. Note, I have some experience with just this type of claim. My Dad is an attorney, sued and won a similar case against Volvo and the servicing Dealer due to a turbo failure that they denied a warranty repair on due to poor record keeping of indy oil changes. In my father's case, the legal work was almost free since he litigated it himself. But the case was relatively easy for him as i recall.

And by the way, I realize everyone is going to jump up and down about the fact there there are mods, blah blah blah. I dont think it matters. The burden of proof is on GM. They need to provide definitive proof that the mod caused the failure. Now, being realistic about this matter, it might actually be possible to prove such a thing in this day and age. I don't know what type of logging these vehicles have for engine parameters and to what extent that history might be stored. However, if the intake caused an extreme lean condition, I could see that causing something catastrophic. On the other hand, these cars should be hopefully sophisticated enough to manage that type of condition without grenading, but I digress. Anyway, if such evidence existed, it might, MIGHT be sufficient for GM to win the case. But that is a lot of iffs and you have to keep in mind that this will be litigated in front a judge that, more likely than not, knows absolutely nothing about the mechanics of an engine. Said judge is unlikely to be particularly sympathetic to BIG giant GM fighting against POOR little car owner with a dead engine at 10k miles. Keep in mind, Judges are people. It isn't always as absolutist as you might think in the courts. ie. the "right" side wins.

Separately, it wouldnt surprise me if they just settled the case if it ever came to it rather then litigating. For GM it is not that much money and not worth the trouble to litigate these types of cases all over the country.

As for OP, now that I read the whole thread. I highly highly highly doubt they come back after you now that the decision was made to warranty it. I am sure they will come through for you now that the decision was made. Glad to hear it worked it as best it could thus far.

[BowtieRocket]

Thanks for the all the support brothers. I am trying to keep the faith

[CAM-FIFTY]

Originally Posted by stook2001

... but the burden of proof is on GM in the court.

Read that statement from many, can anyone cite a law that actually says so or is it just a hearsay?

[Marty McFlew]

Originally Posted by BowtieRocket

Not sure if the outcome will change if they find another issue other than the rod knock they claim...but we'll see.

Chevy stepped up to the plate and did the right thing. In doing so probably makes you confident in being another Chevy customer down the line doesn't it? If they would have left you hold the bill you would probably be saying screw them as a long time customer.

[Marty McFlew]

Originally Posted by Richard0nee

Awesome news buddy!

I knew the CAI, VTC and Catch can isn't enuff to void it for a rod knock. But if you had oil issues the catch can can be an issue.

I would like to drive my Camaro on that road in the pic.

[BowtieRocket]

Originally Posted by Marty McFlew

Chevy stepped up to the plate and did the right thing. In doing so probably makes you confident in being another Chevy customer down the line doesn't it? If they would have left you hold the bill you would probably be saying screw them as a long time customer.

That pretty much sums it up yes. The dealer is taking care of me too. They told me since GM is picking up the tab, that authorizes me to get a loaner on GM's tab too. So I'll be rocking a new GMC Arcadia with 1600miles until the repairs are completed.

They also said that the reason the car probably died originally is that the battery is indeed toast. The other shop said it was fine. Looks like I am at the right shop.

[Michigan1LTRS]

Man!! I am so loving this!!! Congrats!!!

[stook2001]

Originally Posted by CAM-FIFTY

Read that statement from many, can anyone cite a law that actually says so or is it just a hearsay?

It's really not that complicated. Magnuson-Moss provides consumer protections for warranty claims. Your warranty states that certain aspects of your vehicle are covered under warranty for a fixed length of time and miles. The manufacturer is required to comply with their warranty, period. When you sue, you are suing for breach of warranty. At the point when you have filed your lawsuit, obviously the manufacturer has already denied the warranty claim. That having been said, the manufacturer then needs to provide an ironclad explanation to the court for NOT complying with the warranty. Warranty coverage is not optional if their is a warranty sold with the product.