Nissan Class Action Lawsuit Claims Warranty Is Deceptive

A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nissan North America by a vehicle owner who claims that the automobile company fails to identify the fuel pump installed in the cars as a high-cost emission part and is thus limiting the warranty on these parts.

Plaintiff Bobby Harris says that he purchased a used 2013 Nissan Juke on May 23, 2017 from CarMax Auto Superstores California. He claims that at the time of the purchase, his vehicle had in place the remainder of its new car warranty, including coverage pursuant to the California emissions warranty.

As his vehicle hit 68,664 miles, Harris states that he took it to dealership because the check engine light came on. He claims that the Nissan dealership performed an emissions system testing service and it was determined that the fuel pump had an internal defect. After replacing the fuel pump, the Nissan dealership said that it would not provide warranty coverage for the part under the California emissions warranty.

Harris says that the cost associated with the diagnosis and repairs should have been covered and paid for by Nissan under the 7-year 70,000-mile California emissions warranty because, under California law, the fuel pump should have been identified as a high-priced emission part.

“Plaintiff contends that the fuel pump in Class Vehicles is a part covered by the California emissions warranty, because a defect in the fuel pump will cause the Class Vehicles to fail a smog check, because a defect in the fuel pump will cause the check engine light to illuminate, and because a defect in the fuel pump will increase the Class Vehicles’ regulated emissions,” says the Nissan class action lawsuit.

Harris claims that Nissan’s failure to include the fuel pump as a covered part under the California emissions warranty was an intentional omission by Nissan designed to limit Nissan’s warranty exposure. The Nissan class action lawsuit argues that this is just one example of Nissan’s “scheme” to fail to properly identify all of the parts that should be covered by the 7-years or 70,000 miles under the California emissions warranty.

Under California law, Nissan is reportedly required to identify to the California Air Resources Board (CARB) all vehicle parts that are “high priced” emissions “warranted parts” and Nissan is required to provide a 7-year 70,000-mile warranty to California consumers related to “high priced” “warranted parts.”

Harris says that the law clearly defined the methodology that Nissan is required to use in order to identify which parts should be covered as emissions parts as well as which parts should be covered by the 7-year 70,000-mile warranty.

Harris claims that, if the part is a “high priced” warranted part, the labor cost of diagnosing the part failure and the labor cost of replacing the part should have a 7-year 70,000-mile emissions warranty pursuant to a High-Cost Emissions-Related Parts Warranty.

The Nissan class action lawsuit states that Nissan has engaged in a systematic business practice of omitting from the warranty booklet all of the parts that should be identified as emissions related warranty parts covered under the 3-year 50,000 warranty and all of the “high priced” parts that should be covered under the 7-year 70,000 California emissions warranty.

“When Nissan vehicles are presented by consumers to Nissan authorized repair facilities for repair, Nissan fails to provide coverage under the 3-year 50,000- mile California emissions warranty or the 7-year 70,000-mile California emissions warranty for all of the repairs that should be covered under said emissions warranties,” Harris goes on to say.

As a result, Harris states that consumers have to pay out-of-pocket for these repairs, which, under California law, should be paid for by Nissan. He says that Nissan engages in this misconduct in order to reduce the amount of money that the car manufacturer has to pay out on warranty-related repairs and warranty claims.

The Nissan class action lawsuit maintains that, if Nissan properly identified all of the warranted parts and high-priced warranted parts that should be correctly identified as such, Nissan dealerships would then properly provide coverage for emissions related parts and high-priced parts under the warranty.

Prospective Class Members include: “All persons in California who, within the last four years, have been owners or lessees of Nissan MY 2011 through MY 2017 Juke vehicles and who have paid for repairs and parts for the fuel pump that should have been covered under Nissan’s ‘high-priced warranted parts’ 7-year 70,000-mile California emissions warranty.”

Do you own a Nissan and the fuel pump was not covered by the warranty? Leave a message in the comments section below.

The plaintiff is represented by Jordan L. Lurie and Ari Y. Basser of Pomerantz, LLP and Robert L. Starr of the Law Offices of Robert L. Starr.

The Nissan Warranty Fuel Pump Class Action Lawsuit is Bobby Harris v. Nissan North America Inc., et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-06021, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

Read More Lawsuit & Settlement News:

Movie Theater Shutdowns Challenged in Class Action Lawsuit

Why Was Zantac Recalled?

Hostway Email Services Class Action Settlement

What Are the Uber Requirements for Drivers?