Just a note that I have retained an attorney (well, our corporate lawyer) and we are going to go after BMW NA for a MM act violation.

The car is an MCS with less than 10K miles on it. The problem is with a known failed component that has nothing to do with the mods that have been installed. BMW's position is that since someone other than the dealer has worked in the engine bay, they cannot warranty any component that may have been touched by a non-BMW mechanic. I am not kidding - this is straight from BMW NA.

I will post as events warrant. I've spent the last three weeks finding out a great deal about how BMW bullies local dealerships into denying warranty service. I look forward to sticking a big fat hairy thumb in their eye.

 

Let us know how it goes. I'm interested to see how this turns out.

 

Good, go for their throats. The scumbags.

 

Best of luck to you! Keep all of us informed!

 

Good luck on your lawsuit. Just don't get your hopes up too high. Where are you filing (presumably in U.S. District Court; but in which district)? Is your company footing the bills (depositions, expert witness fees, etc.)?

 

oh man... glad 2hear this, i know 4a fact that these fools need 2b stoped dead in their tracks.

i've had several run-ins w/that interprise but have come out on top.

thx god.........good luck & keep us posted
peace, but if not possible... WAR then!!!!!!!!!!!

 

I have a couple of grand ($2K) in non warranty issues because of my mods......

 

For starters, it would be good to know what your mods are and what it was that has failed.

 

What happened to the car and what mods are they saying caused the problem?

 

An electrical component took a dump - a known failure area in 02s and 03s. Two cars are currently in the shop with similar issues - both unmodded.

The car is running the JCW DME, injectors, airbox, aftermarket head/cam and pulley. There are no modifications to the electrical system (with the exception of the dealer installed iPod adaptor).

I am one of the owners of a fairly large company. The law firm handling the issue have been our corporate lawyers for 35 years.

I have edited this post for various reasons. If anyone would like to know additional specifics on the malfunctioning component and BMW's refusal to diagnose it - please PM me.

 

The Federal Clean Air Act also forbids dealers from requiring dealer-exclusive service.

 

This is also a fun area. While the manufacturer can not require that service such as air filter changes (otherwise known as maintenance) be performed by dealers, the manufacturer is within its rights to require that an authorized agent (otherwise known as a dealer) be the one to do any repair to the emission system that it is covering under the emission system warranty. So, if say, the catalytic converter needed to be replaced under the emission system warranty, the manufacturer could require that you bring the car to the closest dealer to have the replacement performed.

 

You might be able to get BMW/MINI to pick up the cost of the repair after a few rounds in the pissing contest. You appear to have the resources to fight a M-M action. Just don't be surprised if as a condition of settlement, you are required to sign a Nondisclosure Agreement where you have to remain mum about the issue and the outcome.

 

Be aware..........Ive seen it b4 and if you try to have a "pissing contest" with them and they do give in ( which ive seen also ) they have been known to do the work under warranty and at the sametime void the rest of your warranty.

Remember......They have tons of lawyers who are more experienced in this field and its not the first time or last that a problem like this will arise. Sorry, but im not trying to bring you down but just tell you what might happen.

 

Just curious... what do you project your actual damages to be? Is the cost going to be high enough to get you out of small claims court?

A word to the wise... I am a really good lawyer at what I do (not lemon law). One of the things that makes me good is knowing when I don't know enough about a topic to handle it. In that situation I refer cases to experienced people. Is your corporate lawyer the right person for this, or do you think an expert might be wiser?

 

Not sure, but I would guess that the MM Act has an attorneys fee clause. Winning the suit may pay small damages, but they would nonetheless have to pay all the attorney fees as well. Of course, that does not help if you lose... but what does?

 

I have also heard that most cases pertaining to this type of situations come out in favoring the attorney's more than the clients. $$$$$

 

1FSTMINI you are absolutely right. I have been a trial lawyer for over twenty years.

Should one prevail, and even with a sweetheart deal with an attorney on attorney's fees and the recovery of "reasonable attorney's fees" (the courts do not equate "reasonable attorney's fees" with the attorney's fees actually charged. In most cases the attorney's fees recovered do not equal all of the attorney's fees the client incurred and is obligated to pay), the fees, costs and expenses of the lawsuit will ultimately exceed the out of pocket loss. Thus, it would have been less expensive just to have the problem fixed outside of the warranty.

From a financial perspective, there is no way to win this lawsuit. If it is prosecuted on the basis of "principle" and the attorney has no problem with that, get a different lawyer since he or she is only in the case to bill you. Even then, most counsel won't take the case because when out of pocket attorneys' fees, costs and expenses before trial exceed $10,000.00, on a $1,000.00 fix it will no longer be a matter of principle - it'll be "those damn lawyers" and the financially reckless client will now focus his or her ire on the attorney.

I'm sure Skiploder means well, but six months from now expect the "I told you so" thread.

 

trico, I never cease to be amazed that people who are otherwise good business men and women, get all wrapped around the axle when their car goes south on them and the manufacturer denies a warranty claim because of non-factory modifications that were made by the car owner. If they were so concerned about warranty coverage in the first place, then why did they go the aftermarket modification route? Go figure. But I do agree that even if the legal fees can be hidden in business operating expenses, there is still a point where the cost-benefit is too lopsided to ignore. Furthermore, what do you think the other owners will think about non-business expenses (the costs of fighting a M-M pissing contest with BMW/MINI) being charged against their profits????

 

When you modify a car with aftermarket parts, you are doing so at your own risk of losing the warranty coverage. I would think it is unfair for a car manufacturer to cover owners of cars that have seen such modifications while other owners choose not to do so in order to protect the warranty.

You took a gamble and you lost. Face up to the consequences of your actions where it hurts the most (The wallet).

 

You guys need some common sense. The consequences of his actions??? Get real.

It's one thing to modify the head and expect BMW to warranty it...that's not gonna happen. But, if you modify the head, and the crank pulley breaks and they deny warranty because of the modified head, they still have to warranty the pulley. That's what the MM act is there for. Sure, I mod my car, but if I have an issue with it that is not related to the mods, I EXPECT it to be covered under the warranty.

 

The issue is not what MINI should do under warranty - MINI will do what it wants. The issue is, will the unreimbursed fees, costs and expenses to pursue the matter exceed the out of pocket cost to repair?

You are correct that the MM Act is there to protect consumers, however, it does not make economic sense to turn every warranty coverage determination into a federal case. (Don't even tell me that it'll be brought as a class action - you think the cost of the lawsuit was high to begin with, just try that tactic and see who ends up owning your house). This just may be a situation where you would be better off to pay for the repair and let it go after pursuit of all non-litigation remedies.

 

DITTOS

 

Give 'em hell!!!

And keep us informed. In case of gag order, see OT:P baseball metaphor thread for lessons in code-speak

 

Reality is.....There is no law stating a companies product has to be backed by a warranty to be put on the US market ( never heard of a law myself so correct me if im wrong ). The reason for a warranty is to promote sales to make the buyer feel better about that product. The warranty policy clearly states that if you touch or alter your vehicle in any way other than how it came from the factory they reserve the right to deny you of any help. So if you breach the warranty policy you are not eligable for anything.