Car Owner Loses Case Must Pay Subaru $75K in WRX Warranty Dispute
06-19-2004, 07:28 AM
#1
Admin v2.0
Thread Starter
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Alameda, CA, USA
Posts: 6,965
Car Info: 02 Black Legacy GT
Car Owner Loses Case Must Pay Subaru $75K in WRX Warranty Dispute
SAN JOSE, Calif.--June 18, 2004--On Monday, a Santa Clara County Superior Court judge awarded $75,000 in attorney's fees to Subaru of America, Inc. under California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act. In awarding the attorney's fees the court found the evidence was overwhelming the plaintiff had attempted to defraud Subaru in bringing the action, and plaintiff's attorneys had an obligation to and should have determined that either when they filed the suit or during investigation and discovery.
The case involving an allegation of a defective transmission in a 2002 Subaru Impreza WRX was brought under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act and the CLRA. The court further found that because of their conduct in litigating the case, the plaintiff's attorneys had caused Subaru of America, Inc. to incur unnecessary attorney's fees of at least double the amount defense of the breach of warranty case should have cost. The court's award of the $75,000 represented the amount over what the court estimated were reasonable attorney's fees for defending the case.
Mendez v. Subaru of America, Inc. (Case No. 1-02-CV808407).
Plaintiff was represented by the Kinsey Consumer Law Center, Soquel, California;
Subaru of America, Inc was represented by Barbara J. Frischholz, Bowman and Brooke LLP, San Jose California.
SOURCE: www.theautochannel.com.
The case involving an allegation of a defective transmission in a 2002 Subaru Impreza WRX was brought under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act and the CLRA. The court further found that because of their conduct in litigating the case, the plaintiff's attorneys had caused Subaru of America, Inc. to incur unnecessary attorney's fees of at least double the amount defense of the breach of warranty case should have cost. The court's award of the $75,000 represented the amount over what the court estimated were reasonable attorney's fees for defending the case.
Mendez v. Subaru of America, Inc. (Case No. 1-02-CV808407).
Plaintiff was represented by the Kinsey Consumer Law Center, Soquel, California;
Subaru of America, Inc was represented by Barbara J. Frischholz, Bowman and Brooke LLP, San Jose California.
SOURCE: www.theautochannel.com.
06-20-2004, 09:36 AM
#7
while the outcome of this case might have been justified, it also sets precedence for other subaru owners. now the fight against SOA might be a little harder. outside of our personal issues with SOA, a court victory woud've at least given us some indicator of the court's sentiments. it's too bad that this case never got to that; we will have to wait until a legitimate case gets ruled on....
06-20-2004, 09:39 AM
#8
Registered User
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: "It will take time to restore chaos." GWB
Posts: 3,461
Car Info: 72 Vespa with curb feelers
Well, I don't know the details, but it sounds like there was EVIDENCE of abuse, not merely a failed transmission.
As far as the WRX transmission goes, people keep clowning the WRX tranny, but what about the majority of owners with no issues... who will NEVER have an issue?
My tranny is fine, but I'd bet I could make it fail with abusive launches.
As far as the WRX transmission goes, people keep clowning the WRX tranny, but what about the majority of owners with no issues... who will NEVER have an issue?
My tranny is fine, but I'd bet I could make it fail with abusive launches.
06-20-2004, 12:17 PM
#9
Guest
Posts: n/a
From What I've Read
On this board and NASIOC, the warranty was originally denied, but when served a subpoena SOA offered to replace the trans under warranty at which point the plantiff claims his lawyer wanted to pursue the lawsuit and "milk" them. Dude should have just accepted the tranny. Going for more than the replacement could easily be perceived as "an attempt to defraud SOA" the judge could have ruled in the plantiffs favor had they not gotten greedy.... my 2 cents
06-20-2004, 01:56 PM
#10
the fact that the majority of WRX owners have no transmission issues can not be used to disprove that there ARE wrx transmission issues for a small segment of owners. by this, i mean owners who did not abuse their transmissions.
while most of us have no problems, that doesn't rule out the possibility of factory defects; if we blindly hold to the supposition that transmission failures are caused by abuse, i feel that we have done an injustice to our fellow board members who are experiencing issues without flagrantly abusing their transmission or the SOA warranty.
my interest in this case is the outcome of the archetypal "private party vs. big conglomerate". i love my WRX but i think that the passion we have for our cars as well as our admiration of subaru products have clouded our judgement in accepting the remote chance that subaru might be at fault to some degree. again, i don't know if they are...but a court ruling would be an indicator of that, in which case we could not get from this trial b/c of the circumstantial technicalities that prevented further scrutiny.
while most of us have no problems, that doesn't rule out the possibility of factory defects; if we blindly hold to the supposition that transmission failures are caused by abuse, i feel that we have done an injustice to our fellow board members who are experiencing issues without flagrantly abusing their transmission or the SOA warranty.
my interest in this case is the outcome of the archetypal "private party vs. big conglomerate". i love my WRX but i think that the passion we have for our cars as well as our admiration of subaru products have clouded our judgement in accepting the remote chance that subaru might be at fault to some degree. again, i don't know if they are...but a court ruling would be an indicator of that, in which case we could not get from this trial b/c of the circumstantial technicalities that prevented further scrutiny.
Last edited by doughboy; 06-20-2004 at 01:59 PM.
06-20-2004, 02:02 PM
#11
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: california, LOS ANGELES
Posts: 1,013
Car Info: dream car Subaru STi
what was wrong with the tranny was people who dont know how to use the wrx tranny and abuse it, breaking it then saying it was subaru's fault. lot of cases of people breaking it then calling it a glass tranny when in fact its the driver who launches it like an 8 year old's toy.
06-20-2004, 05:46 PM
#12
Guest
Posts: n/a
Subaru Says Thier Purfect
There is a TSB that states that ALL transmissions opened up for warranty inspection that have broken gears are to be considered abused. So SOA is saying that ALL of their gears are PERFECT, that there is NO WAY that they could fail due to any other reason.... I don't know about you, but nothing is perfect...
Last edited by NowBoosting; 06-20-2004 at 07:02 PM.
06-20-2004, 09:50 PM
#13
Guest
Posts: n/a
Subaru is selling a car that appeals to just the sort of crowd that abuses cars. The 16-24 year olds out there which represent a LARGE percentage of their market are not all reasonable in their driving manors. I'm not saying that all trannys are perfect, but it's more likely a case of people crying wolf. If 80% of all the claims really ARE abuse, it makes it really hard for the other 20% to get their problems fixied!!!
67000 total miles and 2000+ track miles and my tranny's perfect.
67000 total miles and 2000+ track miles and my tranny's perfect.
06-20-2004, 10:46 PM
#14
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Fairfield, CA
Posts: 1,051
Car Info: 1998 Chevy S10... lowww
my dad's 02 wrx had to have the 1st and 3rd gears replaced, and he did not abuse it. its his daily driver, and he babied it. subaru did that on warranty no problem.
06-21-2004, 03:39 AM
#15
ouch.
the point is not if the tranny was abused or not.
subaru offered a replacement tranny.
he wanted more ($$ money $$ on top of the free brand new tranny) and sued them.
gotta pay the price for being greedy, i guess
the point is not if the tranny was abused or not.
subaru offered a replacement tranny.
he wanted more ($$ money $$ on top of the free brand new tranny) and sued them.
gotta pay the price for being greedy, i guess
Last edited by go go go; 06-21-2004 at 04:00 AM.