Understanding Arizona Lemon Law
Auto manufacturers sell 150,000 cars in America every year classified as lemons: cars with repeated, unfixable problems. Lemons can come from any manufacturer: Toyota, Chrysler, Ford and almost every other manufacturer has built lemon vehicles over the years.
“Lemon laws” enacted across the United States help protect consumers who purchase defective vehicles and compensate them for their losses. Additionally, a powerful federal law known as the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act provides protection for consumers who purchase cars that are having problems under the manufacturer’s warranty. Some lemons may eventually be recalled by the manufacturer, if the problems are systemic.
Arizona’s lemon law protects buyers of vehicles for purposes other than resale.
The lemon law also covers anyone to whom the vehicle is transferred during the terms of the vehicle’s express warranty, and anyone else entitled by the warranty to enforce its obligations. Arizona’s lemon law does not cover leased vehicles.
Arizona’s lemon law covers new vehicles used for the transportation of people or property over public highways, including the vehicle portion of motor homes. The law further mandates used cars are covered for 15 days or 500 miles after delivery, whichever is earlier.
The lemon law does not cover the parts of a motor home designed, used or maintained primarily as a dwelling, office or commercial space. It also doesn’t cover any vehicles with a declared gross weight over 5 tons.
Arizona’s lemon law covers any defect or condition that substantially impairs the use and value of the motor vehicle to the consumer. The lemon law defines these issues as “nonconformities.” Arizona’s lemon law does not cover nonconformities resulting from abuse, neglect or unauthorized modifications or alterations by the purchaser.
The Arizona lemon law compels manufacturers to repair eligible nonconformities as long as the consumer reports the problem within the term of the warranty. They must also repair nonconformities reported within a period of two years or 24,000 miles following the vehicle’s original delivery to the consumer, whichever is sooner.
Think you have a lemon, click here to fill out a 60 second form.
Arizona’s lemon law says a manufacturer must replace or repurchase any nonconforming vehicle they or their authorized agents are unable to repair. However, the lemon law says the consumer must allow the manufacturer a reasonable number of attempts to correct the nonconformity.
The law defines a “reasonable number of attempts” as four attempts to fix the same problem without success. After this, if the nonconformity remains, or if the vehicle is out of service for more than 30 working days, the manufacturer must repurchase or replace the vehicle.
The Arizona lemon law requires manufacturers to pay the vehicle’s full purchase price when repurchasing the vehicle. The manufacturer must also pay all collateral charges associated with the purchase including all applicable taxes. The manufacturer may withhold a reasonable allowance for the consumer’s use of the vehicle.
The lemon law requires any manufacturer replacing a nonconforming vehicle to provide an entirely new vehicle. If the replacement vehicle is of lesser value than the nonconforming vehicle, the manufacturer must refund to the consumer the difference in taxes attributed to their sales. If the replacement vehicle is worth more, the manufacturer must calculate the gross proceeds by subtracting the value of the nonconforming vehicle from the replacement vehicle and collect tax on the difference.
Arizona’s lemon law requires consumers to resort first to a manufacturer’s informal dispute settlement procedure, i.e. arbitration, before seeking repurchase or replacement.
In an arbitration, a neutral third party (an arbitrator) decides whether a reasonable number of repair attempts have been made and what award, if any, should be granted to the consumer. If the consumer accepts the arbitrator’s decision, the manufacturer agrees to comply with it. A manufacturer’s arbitration process must comply with the Code of Federal Regulations.
There are downsides to the arbitration process. Firstly, attorneys are not required for either side in arbitration. However, the manufacturer will certainly either send an attorney or someone advised by an attorney. Consumers can bring legal representation, though legal fees may not be awarded by the arbitrator unless the manufacturer has chosen to include them as an award in their arbitration application. Any consumer looking to pursue the arbitration process in Arizona is advised to speak with a law firm beforehand.
Arbitration programs allegedly assist both consumer and manufacturer in collecting evidence to be presented from each side, so that it may be shared with both sides prior to the hearing. Unfortunately, in arbitration both sides have fewer rights to discovery: the legal process by which litigants can obtain evidence. In a lemon law case this puts consumers at a disadvantage, as they need discovery to gather evidence to prove their cases, and much of the evidence is held by the manufacturer and dealership.
Before the arbitration begins, the owner should collect all documents relating to the vehicle and the repair process, including the letters exchanged with the manufacturer. They should also arrange for witnesses to appear at the hearing, including friends who have witnessed the vehicle’s problems. The vehicle in question should also be ready for inspection and test drive at the hearing.
Arizona consumers with warrantied vehicle problems would be well served to contact a law firm for a consultation on what their next step should be, whether it be going through with arbitration or proceeding to trial. In court, consumers are guaranteed the ability to gather evidence under the state’s civil discovery rules, and to be represented by a qualified lawyer who can guide them through the often complex legal process.
By pursuing a claim under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, Arizona consumers can hire lawyers who will represent them without the vehicle owner having to pay any attorneys’ fees directly out of their pocket. This is because the federal Act provides that the vehicle manufacturer shall pay the claimants’ reasonable attorneys’ fees if the claimant prevails against the manufacturer.