Major Assistance required!!

[X's Revenge]

I have been on 5 Challenger sites to locate any and all SE/SXT (3.5ltr) related issues, namely misfires in these cars to assist in a legal suit with Chrysler Canada.

Most of you know I crashed my Challenger last Monday evening when my car started to misfire and the engine shut down, into the ditch I went and throw a dirt mound. Well $6500 in repairs and I'm on the hook as Chrysler does not want to deal with their mechanical failure and my insurance refuses to establish a claim because it's a mechanical failure.

My car was purchased outright in Nov of 08', and to this day after 14 visits to 3 dealerships the problem has yet to be resolved. So you can understand my urgency to assist my lawyer in this and would help back up that this problem exists in other 3.5ltr cars. I have 1 local Challenger owner that had his car in the same time mine was in with the same problem....

Any threads you can point me in or attach the link to would be a great help.

Thanks
Chris

[GasGunR]

No lemon laws in Canada? Down here, you'd already have a new car...

[formerice]

Have you tried the search function of the forums? There are almost 30,000 members here and if any of them has had that problem in any LX/LC cars, they probably posted here. Can't believe the insurance company won't cover it at least. I have heard of one 3.5 LM car (Intrepid) that had a similar problem. The owner pulled out the ECU and ordered a new one. A couple weeks later, Dodge dealer said there was some delay getting a new one, so he reinstalled the old one and it has never bothered since. Good luck

[X's Revenge]

^ yes I have tried the search function, there was another member on here with the same misfire issue, I cannot find the thread, that is the 1 I am looking for, I've tried different variances of thread search titles..... been at this for 3 days now... that's why I'm asking for help.

Dealership has replaced the PCM, applied TSB's that aren't for my build date after Techline auth'd it. The issue is my Ins.co is pointing the blame at Chrysler as they have not satisfied the requirements to fix a mechanical problem, and because Chrysler refuses put in writing a 100% garauntee the mechanical issue will be resolved. And so the Ins. Co. can deny the claim. It even states in most policies that in the event of a vehicle mechanical failure, claims can be declined if the mechanical issue has been ongoing and unresolved and should be addressed at dealership / manufacturer level.

I have full coverage and the collision claim was filed, it was denied after the investigator reviewed the mechanical history on my car through the work orders I have and has denied the claim due to an ongoing and unresolved mechanical liability that the dealer was aware of. Frankly I'm being informed the vehicle should not have been on the road until it was confirmed solved.... as the outcomes of teh previous misfires could have caused an accident due to loss of power at traffic speeds etc.... it's basically a way out for the Ins. Co, I applied to Campav and they also agree that this should be handled at the dealership / manufacturer level as this is a reoccuring mechanical issue. I can see both sides of this but when it is all said and done, it needs to be resolved 1 way or the other so I can either buy a new vehicle or have a vehicle repaired and 100% fixed.

[Shelby]

Even a cheap lawyer could probably solve this quickly and cheaply.

[X's Revenge]

^ I have a lawyer now, not cheap but a highly recommended firm that has a history dealing against the auto industry, out of 36 cases worked they have won replacement values on 26 of them, 7 of then have been settled with repairs and extend warranties appied for various issues, and 3 settled with shared costs. Those cases didn;t have any history like mine, he feels pretty confident this can be resolved with a letter to Chrysler and we should have an agreement in a week or so... but the dealership is still waiting on their attempts etc....

[Boggus]

Seems like most Insurance companies out there would get you fixed up under your coverage and then go after Chrysler for reinbursement.

[X's Revenge]

^ this is what I thought but he underlying problem is insuring a vehicle with a mechanical problem, they don't want the liability of a future accident with a known mechanical issue. This is what sucks, they are protecting themselves, they will repair the collision issue, but not until Chrysler can fix he motor problem and put it in writing that it is fixed.

[Nightshade]

The mechanical issue could have easily injured you.. Your lawyer should mention that to chrysler.. 14 attempts to fix the issue and how accident caused by the KNOWN issue. Not good. Get that in front of a judge and they may suddenly change their minds quick about replacing the engine or the car...

Good luck..

make sure you document everything.. if it winds up going to court, it will help you greatly.

[Captain J]

I wish you luck. Insurance companies are in the business of not paying and if they can find any way out of a claim they will. My insurance Co. would gladly spend 100.00 to get out of paying 1.00 for some reason. I went through the same thing as you with a motorcycle one time. It took FOUR years to get my money for a claim that I was obviously entitled to. My lawyers thought it would be resolved when they pointed out to the insurance Co. they were in violation of their own policies and contract. Guess not because they decided to wait me out thinking I would give up or run out of money for the law suit. They did not count on me being a pig headed, egotistical, know it all jerk. LOL

[X's Revenge]

thanks guys, I did get some good backing today, AMVIC (Alberta Motor Vehicle Industry Council) send me a letter stating they can't help because it's not related to any unfair trading issues, however given the circumstances of my situation, it is and I quote "this certainly is an unfortunate event, for you and your family. We regret to inform you this is not a Violation of the Fair Trading act. This clearly is a warranty issue and advise you seek the repairs you request at the dealership / manufacturer level."

The nice thing is I have 2 very reputable councils that support the "warranty" coverage for all of this. My lawyer is elated to hear this. But again, not to get to excited yet, it still has to be addressed at teh dealership as to where they are going to take this.

[richd]

I read a report that says Chrysler is not responsible for any defects on any vehicle sold before May 30 2009.This is part of the Bankruptcy requirements.I think this is wrong and a rip off for anybody that are having problems.

[MattRobertson]

^ this is what I thought but he underlying problem is insuring a vehicle with a mechanical problem

Insurance in Canada vs. the U.S. is a very different animal (even from one U.S. state to another is often pretty different). In the U.S., the industry-standard policy language reads as follows: For Liability coverages, (the kind that pay if you were to crash into someone else, or injure a passenger in your car in a crash), there's coverage for the injured party (i.e. the other guy who sues you). Thats big money on your side, fortunately. On the other hand, when it comes to damage to your auto, right smack at the head of the line on the exclusion list is this:

We will not pay for damage due and confined to mechanical or electrical breakdown or failure.

I am paraphrasing somewhat as its written in the usual outline format, but thats the exact language when put together in one sentence.

Now, insurance companies can opt not to use the standard language, and the really big guys often do not (it takes a big gun and a lot of payroll to get a whole new contract approved by a state's bureaucrats). But usually that means they are writing up some new restrictions. I have never seen a 'manuscript' policy form that is used to provide broader coverage for something like this.

I can check as far back as the mid-1980's and policies said the same thing as far back as then. This is true even in Texas, which does not use the nationwide standard policy language and has its own, slightly more liberal forms.

the underlying problem is insuring a vehicle with a mechanical problem, they don't want the liability of a future accident with a known mechanical issue.

That sounds wrong, but then again you are in Canada and God only knows what rules apply up there. Here in the U.S., if there were coverage in the first place, thats a past-tense situation and the damage needs to be repaired. Whether they cover you in the future would be an entirely different - and unrelated - matter.

I wish you luck. Insurance companies are in the business of not paying and if they can find any way out of a claim they will. My insurance Co. would gladly spend 100.00 to get out of paying 1.00 for some reason.

Nonsense. Just think for a minute about how stupid of a statement that is from a business standpoint. In my experience, which spans decades, we have had way too many problems with the legal department wanting to stay out of the picture and just paying out claims that we know are fraudulent... because its simply cheaper to pay out than it is to litigate.

You don't see companies dig their heels in unless there is a reason. Usually the first part of the reason is a directive from up top to play hardball with dodgy claims. Some companies - particularly the big ones - get hit with so much fraud that they get medeival on everything that comes in the door. From there, the next part could be a series of mistakes and ego working its way into the picture. Or a genuine belief that the other party is attempting to defraud. While we all know the horror stories, I've never seen anything but the opposite: Carriers that are hell-bent on avoiding the costs of litigation. Very short-sighted in my view as they get a reputation for being a soft touch.

I read a report that says Chrysler is not responsible for any defects on any vehicle sold before May 30 2009.This is part of the Bankruptcy requirements.I think this is wrong and a rip off for anybody that are having problems.

Didn't the U.S. government agree to cover warranty issues? Not sure what the story is up North.

[Hemi RT]

Chrysler Canada did NOT declare bankruptcy and what happened with Chrysler US does not work in Canada. A US court/gov't decession/s do not work in Canada. A canadian court/Gov't would have to make the same ruling to have it apply in Canada and seeing Chrysler Canada didn't declare bankruptcy the American ruling doesn't apply in Canada.

[richd]

The report states Chrysler Group LLC,that i would assume includes Canada because they are part of Chrysler Group.Chrysler Group LLC is not liable for damages connected with vehicles manufactured and sold before May 30,2009 when the new Company was formed under the control of Fiat SPa.