Another case of Toyota not honoring their warranty *Transmission*

Sign up for "Pre-Paid Legal," pay the small fee, use their services and then cancel. Thats the best and cheapest advise I can give. Pre-Paid legal is like auto insurance... you pay and pay until you need it.

 

It's up to the OP. Different people handle their business different ways. I'm just saying that I wouldn't lay down just because Toyota's claims department told me to. Some people would. Takes all kinds to make the world go around.

 

I know quite well how courts work. However, slow guy/girl, the burden of proof is currently on Toyota for denying or limiting warranty coverage. Try reading the Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act before you post again and maybe you'll learn something.

 

And, as I said above, you have no clue about the Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act. The burden of proof is on the warranty issuer, NOT the claimant. Also, in limiting his warranty coverage, Toyota solely blamed towing as the cause, not a lift or bigger tires. Get your facts straight.

 

Jesus H. Christ on a crutch. A wiki expert.

What kind of lawyer would take something like this on contingency? Sheesh.

If this is the same guy who posted on TN, there was a bit more of a macho story about flailing it up a hill. Plus it is a 3 year-old used truck.

Toyota is being kind.

 

^I agree to a point. But, it all goes back to Toyota saying it was due to towing excessive weight.

I should've added this caveat at the beginning: All of my comments are made assuming the OP is telling us the full story.

 

Sorry. Next time I'll do hours of research to find the perfect link. God knows Wikipedia isn't a quick and easy resource for common, non-critical information.

What type of lawyer would take this on a contingency? One like this guy. He says he doesn't even need to "actually, physically meet" his clients. All he needs is a phone call. I'm sure he's quite the advocate, at least during the 20 minutes he spends on each case. So maybe I retract my recommendation to get a Cali. attorney.

 

Obviously he wasn't, as was supported by the following posts.

He threw a cupcake out there initially and was holding back important facts as was made perfectly clear repeatedly by others after the fact.

 

So your saying you'd wish to stick Toyota with the entire cost, even when they are willing to pay half the cost on something that you have no idea and can not prove in any way that may well be user-induced and in no way Toyota's fault?

I used to have a Dodge diesel and would hang around those forums regularly. People used to put 120+ horsepower chips on their trucks, then proceed to destroy their transmissions. They just couldn't understand why Dodge wouldn't buy them a new trans. They would spout on and on about the Magnusson-Moss act, which has nothing to do with that. Contrary to popular belief, the act doesn't say you can do exactly what your warranty says not to do and still get your truck fixed for free. It's rediculous. No, this situation is not exactly the same, but coming on a forum and complaining about how Toyota would only pay for half a new trans that may well have been broke by the origional owner or even the new owner is just rediculous. In reality, Toyota should not pay for any of the trans work. They say it was broke by overloading and the new owner cannot say it wasn't. He doesn't know. He can't prove otherwise. Maybe their trying to screw him, or maybe their techician is right. He is a professional and his opinion will carry more weight in court. Take it to court, he'll lose. It's a good way to waste money and the judicial system's time. If the O.P really thought he was getting screwed, why didn't he at least have the truck taken to a different Toyota dealer for another opinion? Why did he agree to pay half and have the work done?

 

You really must have really strong feelings about this to devote 25% of your posts to it.

 

Yeah, I do.