Join Date: Apr 2011
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Lead Foot: I'm with you for the most part -- if I do something to my vehicle that causes a problem, I expect to pay for it.
The problem, however, arises in those cases where the mere fact of modification is used as a basis for denial of warranty coverage, regardless of whether a causitive link exists between the modification and the problem. If you do a DPF/Urea/EGR delete, with a retune to account for the deletions (but that does not increase power) and then have an engine problem wholly unrelated to the modification, you're still likely to get a denial of coverage notice simply because they know it'll cost you more to fight about it than you'd save by suing to enforce the warranty.
I've been in a similar situation, received the denial, and have only convinced them to cover the warranty work by explaining that I understand what they're doing, and that because I'm a trial lawyer, it'll only cost me my own time to sue them (and if I win I'll get my time and expenses paid). But if you can't prosecute your own case, and aren't willing to shell out for a lawyer up front (and can't find one to do it on contingency), you're screwed.
Want to know how far they'll go: I've personally seen a denial of a claim for a defective brake rotor based on the fact that the consumer had put tires on the car that were stickier than stock.