2003 Frame Replacement Denial

One point that you may need to consider is that, from my understanding, the 15 year warranty period isn't based on calendar year/model year, but rather the date that the vehicle went into service. This may buy you a bit more time, and hopefully not the other way around.

From your pictures, it appears that you have a very good case for replacement. Too bad you aren't here in the East. The dealers here love to swap them, and the techs have it down to a science, to make it efficient.

 

I would go the lawyer route since at this time you keep running into interference with the dealer. At least you would have it on record before the warranty time runs out. Good luck and keep us updated.

 

OK WTF! Denied again.

Maybe I am misunderstanding what the qualifications for a frame replacement actually are. There are two decent sized holes in my frame yet Toyota says it wont replace the frame. I dont know if I am asking too much, or whether Im trying to get something that I am not due... but I at least want to fight this until I know for sure Toyota is not just trying to shrug me off to avoid paying for it. If its not covered because it legitimately not qualified, then fine. But I'm not convinced and im starting to get real pissed off about the run around I am getting from all of them.

Regional is like the fucking man behind the curtain. I have yet to see any formal explanation from Toyota regional as to their specific wording regarding the denial of warranty coverage on the frame. Everyone says I can't talk to them, and there is nothing in writing they can forward me. My truck meets all prequalifying conditions to be covered still, deemed "potentially eligable" i.e. from my understanding it was not void from coverage before the inspection, and there have been no owner negligence, damage or modifications. So the denials are coming from what the dealerships are saying is insufficient rust to warrant a replacement.

I heard today from Toyota of McMinnville that regional did not approve the replacement but what they were going to do for me was replace the spare tire carrier so its safe to drive. No shit Sherlock! I'm aware of the spare tire carrier recall, its a completely separate formal recall that Toyota is obligated to cover. Don't serve it to me like its some sort of consolation prize or partial win on my part. I'm done being cordial and meek with these people. Although I remained tactful, I insisted 3 times on the phone that he (service manager) forward me the work order, photos and any paperwork that was filed regarding the frame inspection of my truck. First he was only going to send me photos and said I didnt need the work order, that it was available on the national Toyota database. I told him finally that I wanted the documentation for my own records so I could seek outside counsel on the matters and talk to a lawyer about Toyota's decision. Still have not gotten his email.

I tried to be straight up with him and say hey look I know your hands are tied by regional and can only do the work they approve, I just want to understand the specifics here. I've heard from other people who have gotten their frames replaced that my truck should qualify for warranty coverage. I've heard that a hole of a certain size in the frame qualifies for replacement. So what is it specifically that regional is basing their decision on? He fumbled around and tried to tell me that they were looking for rust around the spare tire carrier. I corrected him and explained that I knew the spare tire carrier replacement is a separate recall with no qualifying factors for replacement- if they look up the vin number and its listed under the recall, they replace it, no questions asked. The frame replacement is a warranty that toyota extended on the 1st generation Tacomas to avoid having a full on recall on their hands. (I felt like I was the one educating him, or else he was being elusive and playing dumb with me trying to blur the lines of the two issues) Either way dealing with him is not useful. No wonder their service center has horrible reviews on Yelp. I only went their because they were the first available appointment of the nearby dealerships.

 

Does anyone know what this lawyer route might look like? I have some internet researching to do this weekend I guess. But has anyone heard any lawyer stories in this specific issue with Toyota frame warranties? I imagine I can start by getting a lawyer to send a demand letter to Toyota. Any do's or dont's you can think of if I am going to pursue things this way?

 

It's gonna look sloooow.

You can't use just the threat of a lawyer. You get one or you don't. And as soon as you mention a lawyer, you will likely get no response at all without one. Employees of most any company, not just Toyota, are generally instructed that once there is even the bare possibility of any legal action, all communication must go through the Legal Dept. And the dealership will have their lawyer handle things on their end. And none of these lawyers will respond to you - only to your lawyer. And they will drag their feet on everything.

So even if you get your documentation using a lawyer, you can't just send those photos to Toyota Corporate (who already have them anyway,) or take more of your own and send them. You're going to also need to get the "official" rules of their warranty program, which, being a voluntary program are probably pretty fluid, and determine if the inspection met their guidelines, and if the results met the requirements for a frame replacement, and agree to a qualified independent third-party re-inspection (paid by you), and round, and round, and round.

The cost of a new frame is probably a fraction of what they would pay their lawyers, but caving in without a fight would set a bad precedent and open them up to exactly the situation they were trying to avoid by setting up the voluntary warranty extension program. And there's no potential payoff for your lawyer, so you'll end up getting billed hourly for every action.

On the other hand, your frame is rusted out and you have a decent shot to prove it and actually get a new one... Eventually... At more than the cost of a new truck.

The only other thing I can think of is to look up the lawyers involved in the class-action settlement for 2nd Gen. Tacomas. They know what buttons to push and maybe they'd see the potential for a class-action on illegitimately denied frame claims.

 

What reason is given for the denial? I don't recall seeing any given so far. You are at least entitled to that much information.

You mentioned that the vehicle originated in NY. If the vehicle was in NY (or a cold climate state) at the deadline for the application of the required Toyota undercoating, and the prior owner did not have the coating applied, the prior owner would have forfeited the extended frame warranty for the vehicle. Toyota has not waivered from this requirement. There are too many heartbreaking cases of prior owners not meeting the warranty conditions, leaving the current owners without coverage.

Looking at your pictures again, it does not look to me like the coating was applied. Bear in mind that should only be the case if it was in a cold climate state in around 2011 or so. The deadline was a year later for vehicles in NY due to some delay in approving the undercoating formulation, IIRC. My '01 failed inspection when I brought it in for the undercoating in the fall of 2012 in NY.

 

Was your truck's frame coated by Toyota in the past? There was a deadline for the coating on 1st gens (2011 I believe), you had to have it done to qualify for the15 year warranty on the frame...otherwise your frame can rot to pieces and Toyota still doesn't have to do a thing about it, unfortunately.

 

Keep fighting, that frame should definitely be replaced by Toyota.
Good luck.

 

FIRST:
I want to say thank you for anyone who is still reading this thread. I'm hoping that this will be some help to anyone in the future who is dealing with this issue on their 2004 Tacomas, or just anyone who is dealing with getting the runaround on any warranty coverage from Toyota. Its also been really helpful to me to not be alone in this matter, and I may have given up a long time ago if it weren't for the advice and motivation I've gotten from this forum. I can see from my phone records that the first time I called the Toyota Customer Experience Center was in August of this year, so I've been dealing with this issue for 4 or 5 months already still without clear answers!

THE COATING ISSUE:
From what I understand my truck has no record of having the frame coated, but the Toyota CEC maintains that it is "potentially eligible" and as far as the agent can tell it is not disqualified for not having the coating because that was only a requirement for the cold climate states. My truck was not registered in a cold climate state during the time that the frame coating requirement/deadline was advised. When Toyota sent out the frame rust letters in 2008, my truck was registered to a previous owner in Portland, OR. The truck was then registered in Colorado for some time, but then it back again in Portland, which is where I bought it from a used car dealer.

REASON FOR DENIAL: ???
I have never heard directly from Toyota regional or seen anything in writing about the reason for not no covering it. What I was told after the first inspection at Toyota of Portland was that it was denied because the only hole was found in the cross section and not the main frame. Then when I took it to another dealership and asked they make sure to document the hole I had found in the frame, they came back and said based on the photos Toyota didn't think the frame needed replacement, but they have been very elusive about explaining to me clearly what criteria Toyota regional was basing their decision on. I can't very well dispute their decision if I don't know why exactly they decided it.

UPDATES:
After my last post friday I called the Toyota of Portland and asked to be put through to the dealerships head manager. I left a voicemail with him saying that I had brought my truck in there for a frame inspection a while ago and that I wanted to
speak with him about some concerns that I had. I didn't say specifically what about, but my intention is to bring up my complaints in working with their service center and that I want something in writing about my denial of coverage, and a clear understanding of the process for disputing the coverage denial. I called him because its a much bigger dealership than the one in Mcminnville, and its located in Portland, where the regional office is, so they might have closer working connections with the people making decisions. I still have not hear back from him.

I called Toyota CEC to speak with the case manager today. I verified that the warranty coverage does in fact expire on Dec 31 2017. I also asked if he could tell me if my inspection at the Mcminnville dealership was logged into the Toyota service database. He told me the last time anything was logged in their system about my truck was August of 2014 before I even bought the truck! So neither Toyota of Portland, nor Toyota of Mcminnville logged anything into the Toyota database about my frame inspection visit. This was frustrating because this was the reason the Mcminnville dealership said I didnt need a printed copy, because it was in the database... also I had asked multiple times at Portland dealership to make sure they properly logged my visit, specifically because the agent at the CEC had explained to me before that having properly logged inspections would be my only recourse for proving a pre-existing claim should my warranty expire before a final decision is made. At least I have a printed copy of the visit to Toyota of Portland, but it seems ridiculous that neither dealership logged my inspection even though I repeatedly asked them to.

I then called Mcminnville back to tell the service manager I had still not received his email with documents of my visit and ask if there was any problems because the CEC has no record of my visit. He said it wasn't in the database because he hadn't closed the work order yet because he was still working on researching a few things to try to help me out including ordering a carfax report on my truck to see whether he could verify when it was last registered in New York. The conversation I had with him regarding this was very muddled around the whole cold weather state issue and his logic seemed confusing when I asked him what good that would do. I told him that proving if it was registered in New York at any given time would only prove useful in potentially disqualifying me from coverage since my truck never had a coating. As of now it seems that because its not registered in a cold weather state obligating a frame coating is one of the only reasons the conversation is still on the table. And that regardless if it was in New York or not, the damage to the frame is still the same and he had told me before it was denied because it wasn't bad enough in the problem areas they are looking for. He just talked in circles like most of my conversations with him convincing me he was helping me and I ended up hanging up before realizing that he again successfully refused to send me the inspection documentation I had been asking for. Pulling a carfax on my truck shouldnt stop him from forwarding me other previous paperwork I had asked for. I really don't trust this guy and his manner seems like manipulative doublespeak.

Previously I thought it was in the dealerships best interest to help customers get warranty claim coverage because they get paid out from corporate to do the work. But it seems like this dealership is getting some extra incentive to work on behalf of corporate to help block my coverage. I dunno. Just seems fishy.

Unfortunately, Toyota is really starting to wear me down.

 

I don't recall reading any frame warranty posts quite like yours. There have been many successes, and many heartbreaking failures. But the failures have been tied to a definite cause, either time ran out or the undercoating was not applied before the deadline.

Some of the dealer's actions seem inconsistent. First, they didn't do a proper inspection. Second, they didn't write it up and log the service record. Third, they did not provide you with any documentation. And that's just your initial visit. I can't remember my dealer not providing me with documentation for any visit I made to the service department. I keep all those records, along with all the other work records and part receipts for things I do or have done outside the dealership.

Short of having a definitive reason for the denial, in writing, I would continue push for an answer. The clock is running. Without someone at the dealership advocating for you, the burden wil be on you to see this through.

 

I wanted to share this info as one route I have taken in trying to resolve all this. A while back I had filled out a mediation request through the New Motor Vehicle Board and a few weeks ago ago they finally got back to me explaining that when they contacted Toyota about my dispute that Toyota basically told them politely to stay out of it. So that didn't really go anywhere, but its one more step in a paper trail proving that this is an ongoing pre-existing issue.

 

SYNOPSIS:
2 days left of my warranty I went into Toyota of Portland to demand to speak with the General Manager. They refused and sent me to service manager who I was dealing with before. Now they want to document another inspection and vowed to help me get a straight answer out of Toyota.

RANT:
With just a few days left before the end of my warranty period I printed out all my relevant documents and went into the Toyota of Portland dealership today to speak with the general manager. I had called and left two voicemails with the general manager saying I had some concerns I needed to speak with him about, but never received a reply. So I walked in to see if I could catch him at work, but after the suits at the front desk made me explain my reasoning before they would let me see him, they suggested I try talking with the service department first. I said "No... I have already been dealing with them for months, I have been dealing with the Customer Experience Center since late August, I cannot speak with anyone in the regional office, and Ive called twice asking for an appointment with the general manager who is the last in command before I talk to a lawyer." Regardless of my firmness they ushered me over to someone else who sent me to the service manager who just so happens to be the original service advisor who originally dealt with my inspection but now had gotten promoted to manager. I sat down with him and my file folder of photos and printed documents and explained that I was one step away from getting a lawyer if this wasn't able to be resolved directly with Toyota.

I explained all my attempts at seeking answers. I showed him a printed 8x10 photo of the hole in my frame, and he seemed surprised and asked if I could forward that to him. Ha what a joke! I had already emailed him the photos last month and left him a voicemail as well telling him I wrote him... no reply. He looked a bit embarrassed when he opened his email in front of me and saw my unopened email with the photos. Nonetheless he seemed genuinely interested in trying to help and maybe all my shit got lost in the internal shuffle there since the previous service manager got transferred, he got promoted and there was an obvious understaffing issue there for such a big service center. It appears that the reason they didnt document the hole before is because that is where the jacks were lifting the frame from so the hole was under a plate of metal and not visible. He said he didnt know why Toyota CEC says there isnt any record of my inspection there because he filed everything properly and even showed me in his computer where he pulled up my record. He wrote me up a new work order with todays date on it to make sure there was a date stamped paper trail and said for me to bring my truck back in tomorrow. He will do another inspection with me there with the truck so I can make sure they take the same photos I have of the hole. He assured me he wanted to help me because he wants to do the work and that he would try to get a something in writing from Toyota regional about the decision.

 

I found this document online that was sent out to dealerships which details 2 points of relevant information in my case.

1.Vehicles registered in non severe cold climate states- DO NOT NEED REQUIRE THE CORROSION RESISTANCE TREATMENT PROCESS
2.Frame perforation caused by rust... FRAME WILL REQUIRE REPAIR OR REPLACEMENT

--------
--------

WARRANTY ENHANCEMENT (ZTH) – CUSTOMER SUPPORT PROGRAM (CSP) TACOMA FRAME RUST CORROSION PERFORATION ON CERTAIN 2001 THROUGH 2004 MODEL YEAR TACOMA VEHICLES

https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/tsbs/2016/MC-10091609-5448.pdf

 

Also here is a sample of the original owner letter that was sent out by Toyota.

https://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/acms/cs/jaxrs/download/doc/ACM17236946/CSC-10037656-3257.pdf

 

In regard to the threat of a lawyer... they don't care. At all. Threatening to find a lawyer is like threatening that you're going to find a midget to beat up their neighbor. A dealer gets 0 from toyota, they suffer 0 if toyota gets sued and they suffer 0 if toyota loses. The midget part is because toyota spends a few bajilion a year in legal fees whether they get sued or not, and anyone you find in the phone book is ill prepared to do more than write a letter.

If you go that route be prepared for the ?, "can you pay me when we lose?" That is literrally the only question any attorney cares about. If you say no, or that it's not worth $100k in legal fees to fix your old truck odds are they'll gladly remind you where the door is. If otoh you say yes and damn the torpedoes, you've got a buddy for a while.

Class action is generally the only route against larger corps for a reason and that is cost. It's risk vs reward for the atty, they will make serious bank if they win. They will make serious bank when they settle, which they always do. The "victims" will make about 17 cents in the form of a visa gift card. You usually end up upside down in the deal if you buy your own stamp to reply that you will take part in the suit.