April 26, 2008

Smart ForTwo Car Has Safety and Mechanical Issues

The Smart ForTwo car is now being sold in by Mercedes-Benz dealers. The tiny car has met with mixed reviews. After the driver's door opened during a side-impact test, the U.S. federal safety agency opened an investigation. The investigation followed a New York Times blog post that includes a video of a Smart car hitting a barrier at 70 mph. The car remained intact, but a door popped open (www.wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/04/smart-crash test/). smart-fortwo-red.jpg

Separately, in early April 2008, an Automotive News reviewer said the Smart 1.0 liter, 70 hp three-cylinder engine had poor acceleration, the five-speed automated manual transmission makes the car rock back and forth as the driver shifts gears, and on the highway the driver must constantly tug the steering wheel left or right to keep going straight.On the other hand, they are exceedingly easy to park!

April 24, 2008

Crash Ratings from the Insurance Institute

To select a safe car or truck, buyers should review the Insurance Institute for Highway Institute reports. The Institute website makes its findings on cars, trucks and baby seats easily accessible.

In April 2008, the Institute released its side impact crash results on midsize cars. Overall, the study shows that small cars are more dangerous than large cars. Occupants of the smallest cars are about 51 percent more likely to be killed in a crash than those in midsize or large cars.

When it comes to frontal crash tests, "good" ratings on small cars only means they are safer than another small car with a lower rating. They are not necessarily safer than a large car with a lower rating. But side-impact crash tests are different. The impact comes from a ram that strikes the car. Because the stricking force is the same for each test it is possible to compare vehicles of different sizes. This leads to some surprising results in the side-impact tests--the small Honda Fit has a higher rating than a 2008 Ford Crown Victoria.

February 29, 2008

Michelin Abandons Its Pax Run-Flat Tire System

This is an update on the class actions this and other law firms have filed against Michelin and Honda concerning the "PAX" run-flat tires on the 2005-2007 Honda Odyssey Touring minivans and certain Acura RL models.

The cases involve Michelin's "PAX" run-flat tire system consisting of a special tire, support ring, wheel and tire presssure monitoring system. The PAX Systems have proven to be a disaster for consumers--the tires wear prematurely and replacements, which only available from Honda and Michelin dealers, are very expensive costing as much as $300 per tire. Many owners had a great deal of difficulty even finding a Honda or Michelin dealer that had the special equipment needed to replace a PAX tire.

PAX%20tire.jpg

In November 2007, Michelin announced it was throwing in the towel on the PAX System. According to a report in the trade presss, Michelin said it was ending research on PAX "because there is no big market development." Of course, this is a euphemistic way of saying the PAX system has been a failure.

The federal class actions have now been reassigned to a federal judge in the District of Maryland. A separate California state court action is pending in the Alameda County Superior Court on behalf of California owners.

February 29, 2008

Federal Safety Agency Withholds Safety Information from the Public

The National Highway Safety Administration ("NHTSA") is the agency that is supposed to regulate auto manufacturers to improve highway safety. For many years, however, the agency has done little or nothing to ensure highway safety; its actions are more in tune with protecting the auto industry than the public. For example, some years ago, the agency failured to warn consumers that Firestone tires on 1991 to 2001 Ford Explorers were prone to blow out and cause roll-over accidents. 946429_do_not_enter.jpg


Reacting to that failure, in 2000, Congress enacted a law to address the agency's failure to spot safety-related defects in cars, trucks, and tires. The law, known as the Transportation, Recall Enchancement, Accountability, and Documentation Act ("TREAD") directed the NHTSA to report all consumer complaints, warranty payments, and field reports in the event of an injury or death involving a vehicle or tire defect.

However, for years NHTSA did nothing and then made things worse when it enacted regulations to gut the new law. The regulations allow the auto manufacturers to make the data confidential and unavailable to the public. No good reason exists except to protect the auto industry.

The agency has taken other steps to shut out the public and safety advocates from obtaining information on auto safety. The agency formerly had a public library with a great deal of information essential for evaluating the agency's activities. However, in 2006, the agency shut down the library for all practical purposes.

Continuing with its trend to secrecy, NHTSA will not allow journalists to interview the agency's safety experts, which is contrary to the practice going back 20 years. Chris Jensen of the NY Times covered this topic in the NY Times auto blog.

February 19, 2008

Car Dealers Are Taking Away Your Right to Sue

Car dealers in California increasingly have arbitration clauses buried in their sales contracts that preclude buyers from going to court. Under these clauses, any disputes are channeled to arbitration forums, principally the National Arbitration Forum (NAF) and the arbitrator's findings are binding. If the consumer loses, he or she cannot reject the award and go to court. This system is not to be confused with such organizations as the Better Business Bureau that provides arbitration in lemon law cases. Under the BBB rules, if the consumer does not like the results, he or she may still file a lawsuit. In that way, the consumer does not give up the right to hire a lawyer and have the case heard by a jury.678901_contract_2.jpg


That consumers who sign the contracts with binding arbitration clauses unwittingly are foregoing their right to a jury trial is bad enough, but the NAF and similar arbitration forums are, to put it mildly, unfair to consumers. A California law requires these forums to information on who wins these proceedings. The nonprofit group Public Citizen analyzed the NAF data and found that California consumers lost 94% of some 19,000 cases! One arbitrator handled 68 cases in a single day. There is no in-person hearing. Arbitrators who rule for consumers are soon dropped by NAF.

Consumer horror stories involving NAF are common. Mother Jones magazine covered this story in some depth in an article in November 2007.

Other arbitration forums such as the American Arbitration Association are almost as bad for consumers as NAF. Taking a dispute to AAA is quite expensive (especially when it comes to paying the arbitrator). The arbitrators favor the big corporations knowing they won't be chosen for future arbitrations (more fees) if they rule for the consumers.

The car dealers want no part of arbitration when it comes to fighting with the manufacturers over their franchise rights. In 2002, the dealers succeeded in getting Congress to enact a law banning binding arbitration clauses in the dealers' sales and service contracts with the auto manufacturers!

November 29, 2007

Flaws in the Car Buyers Bill of Rights

California's Car Buyers Bill of Rights gives used car buyers the right to return the vehicle for any reason within two days, but only if the buyer agrees to pay a fee ranging from $75 to $400 depending on the price of the vehicle. The first problem is that many dealers are persuading buyers to waive this protection. A second problem is that some dealers are simply refusing to take vehicles back even when the buyers paid for the return option. Some refuse to take back vehicles without payment of unauthorized "restocking" fees.

On November 28, 2007, consumer groups held a press conference on the steps of the Capitol to highlight the defects in the law. Rosemary Shahan of the consumer group CARS pointed out there is no good reason a buyer should have to pay anything for the two day right of return. If the vehicle is returned, the law provides for reasonable "restocking" fees and that should be sufficient compensation for the inconvenience.

Rosemary presented KABOB client Oscar Marin Fuentes as someone who was not protected by the Car Buyers Bill of Rights. Fuentes purchased a used 2005 Chevy Silverado from Capital City Motors in Sacramento. The dealer had Fuentes, who does not speak fluent English, waived the two right of return. With a day or two after taking delivery, Fuentes noticed that door would not seal and air was coming in gaps in the cabin. Fuentes returned the truck to the dealer the next day asking for his $23,500 back, but the dealer refused. Investigation revealed the truck had been in two severe accidents, one a roll-over. The air bags had popped.

At the news conference, Fuentes showed the press the problems with the truck. ABC News' video on Fuentes discussing the problems with the truck is here.

November 12, 2007

Let’s Make a Deal – What the Deal Jacket Reveals

Car sales and leases are not sealed with a handshake these days. After hours of haggling, you’ll be told: “Sign here. And here. And here. And here.” Of course, you should get an exact copy of every document signed or initialed at the dealership before taking delivery of the vehicle. Too often, consumers are so excited to escape the high-pressure atmosphere, they hurriedly stuff their papers in the glove box and drive away. Meanwhile, the dealer is completing its own file.

Just what does the dealer keep for itself? Altogether, those items make up the Deal File, sometimes called the Deal Jacket. It contains internal documents that reflect the transaction, parts of which consumers never get to see. The file might include things like the credit application, a four-square page or other paper trail of promises, the ‘recap sheet’ or sales summary, vehicle invoice, finance papers, DMV information, repair history, inspections, trade-in calculations and separate agreements relating to after-market items. Even the front of this folder may have handwritten notes or other key information. Last but not least, the Deal File reveals how much profit was made on the transaction.

Fraud, if there is any, is likely to show up here. An experienced lawyer can peel back layers of deception by doing the math, applying intuition and noticing numbers that do not add up. It is sometimes shocking. Clearly car dealers are entitled to make a profit – that’s what they are in business to do. Yet, the Deal File can disclose profit centers that have nothing to do with the car it self, like a “theft protection” product that costs $37 and is rolled into the vehicle price at $1,400, or a service contract that costs the dealer $250 and is charged to the buyer at $2,500. At some point it becomes unconscionable. We even see instances where the Deal File shows a finance department is cheating its own sales personnel out of commissions just by moving extras from one line item to another.

When I started practicing consumer law in the 1980s, it was hard to get these internal documents. The defendants first denied they existed, and then cited bogus privacy concerns. Now we obtain this essential evidence routinely in the discovery process.

Last month, the California Court of Appeals issued a decision in a case called Lewis v Robinson Ford Sales, Inc. using evidence of the Deal Files to certify a class action for violation of the Rees Levering Act, an important California Truth-in-Lending law. At first the appellate court was going to leave the decision unpublished. We, and a number of other consumer advocates, urged the court to publish the case. The court agreed. Among other things, the case clarifies the evidentiary value of “Deal Files” as standard documents in the automotive industry and recognizes that vehicle transactions “can be evaluated through the deal jacket” for violation of consumer protection laws.

October 26, 2007

Using Internet Forums to Research Defects

Years ago, manufacturers and their dealers were forever telling owners with problem vehicles this "we've never seen this before" or "the car meets manufacturer's specifications" when the truth was that the manufacturer knew that the problem of which the owner was complaining was both real and to be found in other vehicles of the model. However, owners now communicate with each other about problems with their model vehicle using Internet forums. The upshot is that an owner with a problem vehicle may quickly discover that other owners are having the same problem.

In discovery in one of our class actions against a U.S. auto manufacturer, we obtained a copy of an internal memo that illustrates this development. The author made reference to an Internet forum on the particular truck model in question and then commented, "We can't lie to consumers anymore."

Some of the leading forums are automotiveforums.com, automotive.com, edmund.com/insideline, and rv.net. To find a forum specific to your model vehicle, just search using your model vehicle and the word forum. There seems to be a forum for every make and model vehicle.

October 24, 2007

Best Web Sites on Green Cars & Fuel Economy

The New York Times has selected the best websites that provide accurate information on green cars--hybrid and electric. The sites are treehugger.com that provides a survey of the green car landscape, priuschat.com that covers the Prius, pluginamerica.com that is an organizing site for electric car advocates, hybridcars.com that covers all hybrids, greencarcongress.com is an in-depth discussion of green car technology, gm-volt.com that covers GM's promised hybrid, and autobloggreen.com which is a AOL site that has general information on green cars.

The Times also lists two sites that cover fuel economy. fueleconomy.gov is a site run by the EPA that has a tool to compute miles per gallon which you may compare with other cars. Cleanmpg.com has tips on how to maximum your fuel economy.

September 17, 2007

Good News: California to Join U.S. Car Titling System; Consumers and Law Enforcement to Benefit

In good news for consumers, the California DMV announced that it would join the National Motor Vehicle Titling Information System (NMVTIS) in 2008. Being part of the system allows the state to instantly verify the validity of out-of-state ownership documents, including the VIN, odometer, and any damage history before issuing a California title. Participation will be an enormous help to law enforcement going after vehicle theft and fraud and it will allow consumers to check a current title and odometer readings.

California had foolishly refused to join NMVTIS saying is own computer system had to be updated first. Now, thanks to excellent lobbying by consumer advocate Rosemary Shahan of the non-profit group Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety, DMV has finally done the right thing. Rosemary reports that DMV will let a contract to Carfax.com or AutoCheck.com (an Experian company) to make the data accessible to consumers over the Internet. This development is truly a great advance in providing vital data to consumers shopping for used cars and trucks.

July 30, 2007

Lemon Law Extended to Military Personnel Stationed in California

In July 2007, the California Legislature approved and the Governor signed a bill to extend the protection of the California Lemon Law to members of the Armed Forces stationed in California regardless of where they bought their lemon car or truck. California is the only state that has extended its lemon law to military personnel who bought their vehicle outside of the state in which they are stationed.

The problem was that military personnel stuck with a lemon vehicle were not exactly free to go to their home state where they bought their vehicle to hire an attorney and prosecute a lemon law case. State Senator Ellen Corbett carried the bill that will become effective January 1, 2008. The bill was sponsored by Rosemary Shahan of the non-profit advocate group, CARS.

For more information on the background on this new law, go to CARS' website.

July 10, 2007

The Honda Hybrid Civic that Cannot Make it Up a Hill

One of our clients has a 2006 Honda Civic hybrid that cannot always make it up the hill to her house! Even when she floors the accelerator, the car just stops. Turns out the problem is that when the battery to the electric booster engine on the car is low, the tiny gasoline engine just does not have the power to move the car up the rather steep hill going to her house.

When the car stops, the owner has to back down the hill, drive around for a while to charge up the battery, and then make the run back up the hill. At times, she had to park the car and walk home.

The Honda dealer looked at the car three times, but gave up trying to fix the car because there is no fix.

Channel 7 ABC News consumer reporter Michael Finney took a ride with the owner. Here is his report.

After filing the lawsuit, Honda to refund the owner all her money and take back the car.