jpd80 Posted November 13, 2016 Share Posted November 13, 2016 November 12, 2016 @ 6:50 pm David Bailey Reuters...LINK Toyota Motor Corp. agreed to a settlement of up to $3.4 billion for a federal class action brought by U.S. owners of pickup trucks and SUVs whose frames could rust through, plaintiffs lawyers have said in court papers. The proposed settlement covers about 1.5 million Tacoma compact pickups, Tundra full-size pickups and Sequoia SUVs alleged to have received inadequate rust protection that could lead to corrosion serious enough to jeopardize their structural integrity, according to court papers. Attorneys for the plaintiffs in court papers supporting the settlement estimated the value of frame replacements at about $3.375 billion based on a cost of about $15,000 per vehicle and the inspections at about $90 million at $60 per vehicle. Ouch, that's gotta hurt....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blwnsmoke Posted November 13, 2016 Share Posted November 13, 2016 http://www.upi.com/Business_News/2016/11/12/Toyota-to-pay-34-billion-to-settle-premature-rusting-lawsuits/1311478980400/?hl=1&noRedirect=1 Under the terms of the deal, Toyota must notify owners of the affected vehicles and perform annual inspections for up to 12 years from the first year the individual owned the truck. If premature corrosion is found, Toyota will replace the frames at no cost to the vehicle's owner. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted November 13, 2016 Author Share Posted November 13, 2016 So the $90 Million figure is for 1.5 million inspections @ $60 each - only the first 12 month inspection. Even if none of the frames require replacement (doubtful), the 12 years of inspections will cost almost $1.1 Billion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sullynd Posted November 13, 2016 Share Posted November 13, 2016 I'll never understand these (same with the Windstar issue). If a vehicle is out of warranty, hasn't a manufacturer completed their obligation to the consumer? I mean I'd be pissed if it happened to me, but not sure I'd expect a frame replacement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blwnsmoke Posted November 13, 2016 Share Posted November 13, 2016 (edited) I'll never understand these (same with the Windstar issue). If a vehicle is out of warranty, hasn't a manufacturer completed their obligation to the consumer? I mean I'd be pissed if it happened to me, but not sure I'd expect a frame replacement. Isn't that the same thing as any other recall, safety issue or premature part failure? By your logic, any time a vehicle is out of warranty, there should never be a recall or warranty extension on a vehicle even if the part is made incorrectly and it takes time for its failure to show. Edited November 13, 2016 by blwnsmoke Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atomcat68 Posted November 13, 2016 Share Posted November 13, 2016 At around 8-12 years, wouldn't it be easier and chaeper for Toyota to buy back the truck and crush it than to replace the frame? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted November 13, 2016 Share Posted November 13, 2016 I thought Toyota already replaced frames on Tacomas. Maybe this extends the coverage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordtech1 Posted November 13, 2016 Share Posted November 13, 2016 (edited) So when is the statue of limitations up? Damn 8-12 years old. It's old. It's a machine. Your refrigerator rust or breaks after 5 years, Maytag isn't required to fix it. I understand that it's premature. However past 10 years. Come on. A lot can happen in ten years. Rust belt vehicles look like crap underneath in two. Why just frames? Why not brake lines? They rust in half leaking important brake fluid. Why are they not required to be repaired by the manufacturer? More importantly your house at best has a structural ten year warranty. If it falls into two pieces in the 11th year, you own both pieces. It's interesting to me how the automotive industry is liable for certain parts forever and your home isn't. yet your car depreciates and house appreciates. Edited November 13, 2016 by fordtech1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted November 13, 2016 Share Posted November 13, 2016 I believe the extended obligations are under an interpretation of merchantability and/or fitness of purpose. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied_warranty Note especially: Under US law, goods are 'merchantable' if they meet the following conditions: The goods must conform to the standards of the trade as applicable to the contract for sale. They must be fit for the purposes such goods are ordinarily used, even if the buyer ordered them for use otherwise. They must be uniform as to quality and quantity, within tolerances of the contract for sale. They must be packed and labeled per the contract for sale. They must meet the specifications on the package labels, even if not so specified by the contract for sale. "They must be fit for the purposes such goods are ordinarily used" In other words, if one may reasonably expect the frame of a truck to last at least 12 years, than there is an implied warranty against significant defects over that time period. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted November 13, 2016 Share Posted November 13, 2016 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.