Nissan Fails to Cover Low-Emissions Vehicle Repairs Covered Under Calif. Warranty Law, Class Action Claims

New to ClassAction.org? Read our Newswire Disclaimer

A proposed class action alleges Nissan has failed to properly identify and pay for repairs and replacement transmissions that should be covered for 15 years or 150,000 miles under California’s emissions warranty law. 

The 24-page complaint claims consumers, as a result of Nissan’s alleged conduct, have had to pay out of pocket for repairs and transmission replacements for partial zero emissions and super ultra-low emissions vehicles covered by the state’s warranty law, which is designed to protect against defects in materials or workmanship that may cause a car to violate federal or state emissions standards. The lawsuit alleges the automaker’s conduct extends to all Nissan-brand partial zero emissions and super ultra-low emissions vehicles for which Nissan has received a .2 zero emissions credit from the California Air Resources Board. 

More specifically, the California Air Resources Board has decreed that transmission defects that cause the illumination of a partial zero- or super ultra low-emissions vehicle’s check engine light are covered under California’s Emissions Warranty, in particular given the light should not go on unless a vehicle’s onboard diagnostic system has detected a problem that increased regulated emissions. Moreover, a emissions-related defect that would cause the illumination of a check engine light would result in a vehicle failing a California smog check, and such a defect is a covered repair under California law, the case says. 

“Nissan has failed to extend this coverage, which is an unlawful business practice,” the complaint alleges. 

Nissan’s decision not to cover certain repairs under warranty for all of its partial zero emissions and super ultra-low emissions vehicles amounts to a scheme to limit warranty exposure, the suit alleges. Instead, Nissan’s California emissions warranty for the vehicle models at issue identifies “only a handful of emissions parts” that the automaker says qualifies for the state’s 15-year or 150,000-mile coverage, according to the case. 

As the lawsuit tells it, Nissan’s covered parts list is “woefully inadequate” and exists only for the automaker’s own financial benefit. 

“By narrowly self-defining the parts that are required to be covered under the California Emissions Warranty, Nissan is able to reduce the amount of money that Nissan spends on warranty-related repairs, knowing that most if not all dealerships or customers will not investigate or understand what components should actually and correctly be covered under the California Emissions Warranty as required by the [California Code of Regulations],” the lawsuit alleges.

The plaintiff, a Sacramento resident, claims to have brought his 2014 Nissan Sentra into an authorized dealer for repairs related to “juddering” and the vehicle’s slow response to the accelerator, which was subsequently linked to transmission slippage under load. The dealership recommended that the vehicle’s transmission be replaced, the case says, yet the plaintiff was denied warranty coverage and would have had to pay out of pocket for the repair, the lawsuit says. 

According to the complaint, the plaintiff’s vehicle should have been covered under California’s Emissions Warranty Law given transmission slippage is a delay in acceleration when a driver steps on the gas and essentially a condition that causes an engine to work harder to achieve normal speed and therefore use more fuel, increasing emissions. 

“There is no good faith argument that a defect which causes transmission slipping which is so severe that it triggers a diagnostic fault code is not a defect which increases regulated emissions,” the filing argues.

The lawsuit goes on to allege that Nissan has not only failed to disclose to customers that the transmissions installed in the vehicles at issue are covered under California law but, in response to class action litigation, has “attempted to enter into binding settlement agreements” that aim to shorten the transmission warranty period for certain vehicles. The settlement agreements violate California law and are not enforceable, the case contends. 

The lawsuit looks to represent all consumers in California who have been owners or lessees of all Nissan-brand partial zero emissions and super ultra-low emissions vehicles, for which Nissan has received a .2 zero emissions credit from the California Air Resources Board, and who have paid for repairs and parts pertaining to defective transmissions that should have been covered under the 15-year or 150,000-mile California Emissions Warranty. 

Get class action lawsuit news sent to your inbox – sign up for ClassAction.org’s free weekly newsletter here.