Advice on arbitration process?

No, a clear cut loser for OP. I am an attorney who does nothing but civil litigation (contract disputes, personal injury, wrongful death, corporate litigation, etc.) That case wouldn’t have made it a billable hour past MSJ.

There is no flaw or defect. The truck works fine for its intended purpose. It allows water into the cabin at a very high pressure directed directly toward an opening for the HVAC air intake. As I said before, unless the seller or manufacturer was aware that OP intended the vehicle for a specific purpose and sold him the vehicle anyway despite its lack of fitness for that purpose there is simply no case here.

If that case went to litigation everyone would win but OP. Toyota would get their attorneys fees paid, Toyota’s attorneys would get paid, OPs attorney would get paid. OP would just have a truck he hated and a huge bill.

Toyota didn’t back down because they thought they would lose, Toyota bought the truck back because there is nothing wrong with it, they can sell it for almost the same amount they are going to buy it back for, and they don’t have to foot the bill for arbitration (usually there is a clause in the arb agreement that manufacturer/dealer pays for the first X amount of dollars for arb).

I’m sure your opinion differs. That’s fine. If attorneys didn’t disagree we wouldn’t have jobs.

 

Don’t be a jackass, your getting a bit ridiculous with the whole Hoffa and Kennedy thing. Want to throw Jonbenet in there too?


You didn’t go looking no, but once you found it you pushed it as far as it would go. You went back to the same place then sat under the location that allows water. If I held a hose at the base of my windows on my house, then of course I’d get water in. You exaggerated by saying you took 6 trucks through to prove it did it. Yet no other car wash or even a hose will recreate your “leak.” That’s what I mean by creating or forcing the defect.

Not everyone here is going to pat you on the ass and make you feel good. Sorry if I don’t coddle.

We can agree to disagree. I said I was glad Toyota took care of you, I just think it’s an issue because you’re forcing it to be one.

Hope you have a good night. Enjoy your Ridgeline.

 

Come on man....from day one you doubted what I was posting....I completely understand being skeptical, I get it. But to shoot the messenger at every opportunity and getting personally offended? I joined after I stumbled on the leak to get advice, knowledge and an understanding of why the leaking taking place in the first place. And I did. That knowledge allowed me to successfully counter Toyota' advice of "just don't use that car wash". BTW is the same advice you are giving. My point has always been you should be able to go through any wash you desire with a high degree of confidence the vehicle will not leak .Period. And guess what.....Toyota agrees.

 

It’s not a car wash. Correct, I was skeptical from day one and still am. It’s cheaper for Toyota to give in then go to Arbitration, especially when they can just resell the truck. Also you aren’t going through the “car wash” in the video, you are sitting under it on the hood. The “shooting the messenger,” as you worded it, was confirming how you were validating your issue. My rear sliding window would probably leak if I had that “wash” pouring directly on it while I sat there.

Regardless, it is what it is. Still don’t think it’s the issue your making it to be, but glad you got taken care of.

 

Well put....question. If it is just the wash, and the Tacoma was the only model that allowed the water in....could/ would you argue it differently?

 

No, I would not. I think that the design of the wash itself could be a defense to the design defect. If I remember correctly the wash is at some type of commercial facility? Is it designed for passenger vehicles? Maybe the height of the nozzles, or nozzle spray pattern is to blame for this particular situation where in a wash specifically designed for passenger vehicles does not.

Also consider the other things that Toyota denies warranty work on for “abuse”. For example, heavy off roading, something that Toyota even advertises and is the name of a Tacoma trim level, is considered abuse and is denied warranty.

In my own personal experience I have taken two separate third gens through dozens of brush and touch less automatic washes over three years and have never run into this issue.

 

I'm having trouble following this logic, I'm not a lawyer though. If they take it to litigation they win and everyone gets paid except op. But they decline that so they can take to the time ($) to resell the truck and lose money because they don't get exactly what it's worth ($)? Is this what you're saying? If so, how is that beneficial?

 

It is worth more to lose a couple grand on a truck buyback they can sweep under the rug than pay sometimes up to $5000+ on arbitration that does not have to be reimbursed regardless of outcome. Depending on the arbitration laws in OPs state it is also possible that each party bears their own fees and costs regardless of the outcome.

There is also no risk. I wouldn’t be surprised if they asked OP to sign a non disclosure release before the actual buyback takes place (a little late now).

 

Let me see if I can articulate my thoughts on a couple of your posts. LCFj40 was spot on. Toyota had to take it back based on Florida's lemon law criteria. They knew it, they just wanted to make me jump through hoops hoping I wouldn't. When I put up a challenge, they capitulated. It wasn't because they are a benevolent corporation. Losing in arbitration wouldn't have cost me anything as the decision is only binding on Toyota.

If I had lost, I could've proceeded to lemon law. You do not retain counsel in the arbitration process as it is not necessary. You save that for the lemon law process. Even if I had lost in lemon law, I still wouldn't of been out of pocket anything as my attorney, if lost doesn't get paid, if prevails gets paid by Toyota.

As far as the wash is concerned, it is a basic arch design for passenger use under normal conditions. Toyota didn't test the wash's PSI or GPM to my knowledge. So they can claim differently, show me some facts. I took the video to people in the car wash business who were willing to refute Toyota's assertion if I needed them to. They viewed the video and were taken aback by the amount of water coming in.

You are correct about car washes having different nozzles, angles, etc. Why should the consumer have to be concerned with that? Answer is, the consumer shouldn't have to be concerned with it. So yeah, Toyota had to back down, do that or lose in lemon law and be forced to take a massive hit on the Tacoma's value. It was a business decision to buy it back. Hopefully who ever they sell it to, will get the carfax which will show the history.

 

We’re going to have to agree to disagree on this one. I truly don’t believe you would have been successful on the underlying lemon law claim because I don’t believe there is an actual defect.

Again, unless you could prove that you bought the truck for the express purpose of washing it at that car wash (or any car wash), Toyota held up their side of the sales contract.

One thing we can agree on is that Toyota’s decision to buy back was a business decision. Just not one that a court of competent jurisdiction would have ever forced them to make.

BTW, I do believe that out of all of the “sue them” threads I’ve seen on auto enthusiast forums over the years, you may be the most level headed, so kudos for that.

 

It's all good brother....appreciate the intelligent banter....as they haven't bought it back yet....what is you advice on signing stuff?

 

The paperwork will probably be fairly straightforward. Just keep an eye on non-disclosure/non-disparagement language. It may force you to delete all previously made comments regarding this situation.

 

Thanks.....as an FYI, Florida has two criteria....number of repair attempts and time out of service. As it was out of service for more than 30 culmative days for the same issue....it automatically is elgible for lemon law....regardless of precieved defect.....at least that's how I'm reading it.

 

Y’all sound like a bunch of bitches already, they took the fucking truck back. It’s over already.

 

So how did the buyback process go? What did you replace it with?

 

Completed the buyback a couple of weeks ago, out of pocket after 7 months of ownership was $1,100. Went with a Colorado Z71....it was/is bittersweet....still getting used to it, but the more I drive it the better I like it. Not going anywhere near the infamous car wash though...really enjoyed the taco though....maybe a Gen4....