[ohsmily]

Originally Posted by Memphis SS

All this back and forth about case law and who is right is a prime example why it’s not worth it to me to take the chance. The fight could easily cost as much a the repair or more.

All three of the dealers around me said don’t bring the car in with it on my SS.
I will pass until it’s out of warranty, not worth the risk

What case law? That term doesn't mean what you think it means. There are a bunch of internet lawyers in this thread, though.

[JB'sZL1]

Originally Posted by ohsmily

What case law? That term doesn't mean what you think it means. There are a bunch of internet lawyers in this thread, though.

I don't know if that's directed at me, but I'd be willing to bet a weeks wages I spend more time in courtrooms (regularly) than everyone else on this thread.

Does that make me the accused "internet lawyer?" I think not.


For the record, I got involved for two reasons.

1: The nonsensical statement "You would have to prove that the catch can DID NOT cause the issue." The law abhors proving a negative. How would one go about proving that anyway? It is virtually impossible. What, would you have a judge, jury, clerk, reporter and bailiff watch video for one hour of cc usage to prove it did no harm? Ten hours? A thousand hours? How much is enough? That's the conundrum. Understanding of course a paid expert could testify that he saw/witnessed the same: driven as many hours as the hypothetical damaged vehicle w/ cc. But is that enough? What if it was driven harder, faster, or idled excessively? How could you ever prove the cc caused this hypothetical damage, unless there are numerous documented cases of damaged engines caused by installed cc's 'd (as with Ford's well documented problems with oil delivery)? That is the nonsensical statement that got under my skin, as it is overwhelmingly considered a benign addon. In practical terms a cc expert would most likely be called on to testify exactly what a cc removes, and what effect that does and does not have on an engine.

In the simplest terms, if the applied part is prohibited in the contract (and there may be many of them, even if implied...but that is tougher to prove in court), the warranty could be voided.


2: For the record, I too would err on the side of caution, were I concerned about coverage, and not install any "forbidden" part.

I have just been arguing both sides of the coin, so to speak, so as to get to the truth.

[SJFGTO]

Originally Posted by ohsmily

What case law? That term doesn't mean what you think it means. There are a bunch of internet lawyers in this thread, though.

Not quite. I am a lawyer who is on the internet as a member of this forum. Nothing special about that, just happened to know the answer to how a warranty case is tried. FWIW, I believe a catch can is a good mod on a DI engine, but I also think it is something that a dealer could point to very easily as justification to deny certain warranty claims. Even if the dealer is wrong, it would be cost prohibitive in time and money to prevail. So, it is a “how much risk can you live with” decision. Checking with your dealer in advance as some have done is a good idea too.

[breakskeet]

Originally Posted by JB'sZL1

I don't know if that's directed at me, but I'd be willing to bet a weeks wages I spend more time in courtrooms (regularly) than everyone else on this thread.

Does that make me the accused "internet lawyer?" I think not.


For the record, I got involved for two reasons.

1: The nonsensical statement "You would have to prove that the catch can DID NOT cause the issue." The law abhors proving a negative. How would one go about proving that anyway? It is virtually impossible. What, would you have a judge, jury, clerk, reporter and bailiff watch video for one hour of cc usage to prove it did no harm? Ten hours? A thousand hours? How much is enough? That's the conundrum. Understanding of course a paid expert could testify that he saw/witnessed the same: driven as many hours as the hypothetical damaged vehicle w/ cc. But is that enough? What if it was driven harder, faster, or idled excessively? How could you ever prove the cc caused this hypothetical damage, unless there are numerous documented cases of damaged engines caused by installed cc's 'd (as with Ford's well documented problems with oil delivery)? That is the nonsensical statement that got under my skin, as it is overwhelmingly considered a benign addon. In practical terms a cc expert would most likely be called on to testify exactly what a cc removes, and what effect that does and does not have on an engine.

In the simplest terms, if the applied part is prohibited in the contract (and there may be many of them, even if implied...but that is tougher to prove in court), the warranty could be voided.


2: For the record, I too would err on the side of caution, were I concerned about coverage, and not install any "forbidden" part.

I have just been arguing both sides of the coin, so to speak, so as to get to the truth.

Sorry you are bothered by this statement but its true. Like the good lawyer said, the plaintiff would sue for breach of warranty. GM would say that the catch can caused the failure and you would be then proving the catch can did not cause the issue. You are exactly right however. How does one go about proving this issue? How many catch can experts are out there? Why doesn't GM put them on all cars if it's such a benign add on?

[waterman]

Originally Posted by breakskeet

Why doesn't GM put them on all cars if it's such a benign add on?

Likely because most GM owners and most car owners in general can't be bothered by or are concerned with preventative maintenance.

Skip an oil change or two and the damage created by that, though not readily noticeable is long term accumulative. It simply takes more than 3 years or 36,000 miles to destroy the engine, after that GM is off of the hook.

GM engineers most certainly understand the long term benefits of a CC especially in a GDI application. GM legal understand that if there is an OEM CC installed, that it has the potential to create liability. If an owner forgets to empty his/her CC, the damage is sudden and catastrophic...GM legal wins!

[JB'sZL1]

Originally Posted by breakskeet

Why doesn't GM put them on all cars if it's such a benign add on?

Originally Posted by waterman

If an owner forgets to empty his/her CC, the damage is sudden and catastrophic...GM legal wins!

Exactly.

[JB'sZL1]

Originally Posted by breakskeet

Again GM does not have to prove anything.

Originally Posted by SJFGTO

GM may assert as an affirmative defense that a non approved part caused or contributed to the failure of the covered part.

Originally Posted by breakskeet

Thank you for the explanation.

This is why I posted.

First you write GM has to prove nothing, but, then you agree with SJFGTO with the intro of an affirmative defense. Do you even know what that is? I hate to sidestep here into legalese, but it is germane to the thread. In this state at least (as I believe most), you must assert an affirmative defense in order to introduce that evidence...else it could be barred (and that is no small thing in any legal action).

By definition, a stand alone affirmative defense in reply to a complaint is meaningless. In order for it to carry any weight one must substantiate it with evidence at trial. In this matter, the affirmative defense that cc's damage engines would have to be proven (by GM). Which is exactly contrary to your first false post.

I'm not looking to "just being correct" in some forum. I loathe the spread of falsehoods and misinformation on forums, particularly threads I engage in.

I just wanted to tidy up this little (really, not so little after all) matter: in a civil action GM would be forced to prove cc's are detrimental to engines, unless they are specifically barred in the warranty.

Even though I have one on my LSA, I am not advocating the installation of one in an LT4, or any engine for that matter. That decision is up to an informed consumer to make.

It's all good: I enjoy a little engagement now and then.

[Revalot]

A good dealer can help with a warranty, a customer who breaks up alot of stuff, can make a dealership not want to warranty anything, sounds like you have a good relationship with your dealer.

[Stealth7]

If this becomes an issue, GM, and not the dealer, would make the ultimate decision. If GM wants to deny a warranty claim based on a CC, all they would have to do is deny the claim-- Does not mean that GM must be correct. This would force the vehicle owner to then push the matter into court for resolution, which would not be a costless proposition.

[Intimidator]

My last 2 oil changes at 3500 miles each, have resulted in a full paint rattle can cap...I checked the CC at 1500 miles and it half filled the cap.
My motor is not stock, but that's alot of blowby for the motor to injest, in such a short time.

[C Man]

I really don't understand why you're going to take the risk for a catch can.

Before I would install one... I would get the dealership to put what they said in writing... or else it's he said she said. I doubt they'd do it thought.

[JB'sZL1]

I agree with the above statements. After reading extensively reports from the manufacturers, as well as from users, the only two problems (of a quality cc) I can possibly glean (aside form potential warranty issues) are from:

1: Improper installation (a low probability except from a nitwit), and,
2: Lack of proper emptying.

Can someone else chime in if there are other problems with a quality cc?

[breakskeet]

Originally Posted by JB'sZL1

It's all good: I enjoy a little engagement now and then.

Me too.

[Smokin19]

So, if the service mgr approves the CC, you are good to go. What happens if the dealer changes service mgr's and the new one does not agree? You are SCREWED, not worth the trouble.