Really Bad Start for a First Time 335i Buyer

Originally Posted by Eights-n-Aces

Lemon Law
The Missouri New Vehicles Warranty Law, commonly called the "Lemon Law," protects buyers of new vehicles by enforcing the manufacturer's express warranty. The Lemon Law does not apply to used cars.

(See link in above post)

IF the OPs car was first sold at retail in MO (still haven't determined that little fact as yet), it would seem that MO lemon law does not apply (used car purchase).

Originally Posted by thekurgan

Mice chewing wires should be covered by comprehensive on just about any insurance policy. Pay the deductible and get it fixed.

Ordinarily, I would agree with you, but since the damage occurred prior to the OP taking delivery of the car, the OPs insurance company could reasonably argue that the damage occurred prior to when the car was covered under the OPs policy.

I still think the OP is looking at a small claims action in MO.

Originally Posted by dtc100

It is not whether the dealer, and therefore the manufacture, could deny being at fault, they always do, but rather how likely you may prove they are at fault. Such speculation should be left to an experienced attorney.

Personally, it would be difficult to convince me the CPO dealer, going through the rigorous CPO procedures, as claimed by the manufacture, could have easily missed the problem, so it is likely they simply reset the SES code.

The bottom line is, a reputable dealer, backed by a reputable manufacture, should stand behind their newly CPOed product and resolve the issue for the OP.

And how is that? Presumably the OP took the car for a test drive before signing the purchase paperwork. OP didn't mention anything about getting an SES code until they took the car back to MN. If SES codes didn't appear during the OPs test drive, it is quite possible they did not appear during the test drive part of the CPO inspection.

Originally Posted by anE934fun

Ordinarily, I would agree with you, but since the damage occurred prior to the OP taking delivery of the car, the OPs insurance company could reasonably argue that the damage occurred prior to when the car was covered under the OPs policy.

I still think the OP is looking at a small claims action in MO.

If this is true ....

First off, I certainly appreciate the responses to date. As of 1:56pm central time, I have not received a return call from the GM. This is after BMWNA left a message for the GM early yesterday evening.

I have considered the insurance route, but I am reluctant at this point as I would not only have to take a hit on my premium, eat $1k, but also report that it happened on my property. I worked at a large insurance broker for several years and I do not believe the carrier would accept a claim on the basis it occured prior to me taking ownership.

I have not yet engaged my legal consultant. I believe the GM should be given an opportunity to contact me and try to resolve this. I am not impressed that my calls have not been returned, nor that Suntrup has not contacted BMW of Minntonka to discuss the service findings with their Service Manager. I am not sure what is a reasonable amount of time to let them respond in this situation. It appears in MO a Lemon Law doesn't apply, regardless of this being a CPO vehicle. I'm not sure if it makes a difference the original dealership sold this in Indiana. It appears, in fact, that a user on a different message board I posted this on is actually the private party who sold it to Suntrup. I am waiting for some additional detail from this party if that is the case.

I will update this thread with additional details as I know more. Thank you again for the feedback and comments to date.

Regards,

Doug

Originally Posted by XeroxGuy

First off, I certainly appreciate the responses to date. As of 1:56pm central time, I have not received a return call from the GM. This is after BMWNA left a message for the GM early yesterday evening.

This should tell you all you need to know. You are on your own as regards Suntrup.

I have considered the insurance route, but I am reluctant at this point as I would not only have to take a hit on my premium, eat $1k, but also report that it happened on my property. I worked at a large insurance broker for several years and I do not believe the carrier would accept a claim on the basis it occured prior to me taking ownership.

Yup, you would have an uphill battle having to prove the damage occurred in the short time you have owned the car. As regards a hit to your rates, Comprehensive claims generally don't result in premium increases.

I have not yet engaged my legal consultant. I believe the GM should be given an opportunity to contact me and try to resolve this. I am not impressed that my calls have not been returned, nor that Suntrup has not contacted BMW of Minntonka to discuss the service findings with their Service Manager. I am not sure what is a reasonable amount of time to let them respond in this situation. It appears in MO a Lemon Law doesn't apply, regardless of this being a CPO vehicle. I'm not sure if it makes a difference the original dealership sold this in Indiana. It appears, in fact, that a user on a different message board I posted this on is actually the private party who sold it to Suntrup. I am waiting for some additional detail from this party if that is the case.

Sounds like time to research Indiana lemon law. Otherwise, you are likely looking at a small claims action in MO.

One possible alternative if you can contact the original purchaser of the car (who arguably sustained the mice damage) is to have them file a claim with their insurance company for the mice damage. But that requires the original purchaser to take an action that they really have no motivation to take, since they are out of the picture.

Originally Posted by XeroxGuy

First off, I certainly appreciate the responses to date. As of 1:56pm central time, I have not received a return call from the GM. This is after BMWNA left a message for the GM early yesterday evening.

I have considered the insurance route, but I am reluctant at this point as I would not only have to take a hit on my premium, eat $1k, but also report that it happened on my property. I worked at a large insurance broker for several years and I do not believe the carrier would accept a claim on the basis it occured prior to me taking ownership.

I have not yet engaged my legal consultant. I believe the GM should be given an opportunity to contact me and try to resolve this. I am not impressed that my calls have not been returned, nor that Suntrup has not contacted BMW of Minntonka to discuss the service findings with their Service Manager. I am not sure what is a reasonable amount of time to let them respond in this situation. It appears in MO a Lemon Law doesn't apply, regardless of this being a CPO vehicle. I'm not sure if it makes a difference the original dealership sold this in Indiana. It appears, in fact, that a user on a different message board I posted this on is actually the private party who sold it to Suntrup. I am waiting for some additional detail from this party if that is the case.

I will update this thread with additional details as I know more. Thank you again for the feedback and comments to date.

If you end up having to pay for the repair yourself $2,000 seems reasonable given the work to be performed. I swear I've read stories where people have had to have wiring replaced and it was much higher than a couple of thousand.

Once fixed and behind you I think you'll certainly enjoy your car (assuming there's no other unknown damage caused by the mice) and this will be but a bump on the road.

Originally Posted by anE934fun

Sounds like time to research Indiana lemon law. Otherwise, you are likely looking at a small claims action in MO.

Why would he have any claim under Indiana lemon laws? The OP doesn't have any nexus whatsoever with Indiana.

More importantly, why does anyone think that lemon laws would have any relationship to this situation whatsoever? First of all, most lemon laws deal only with the sale of new cars. Second of all, lemon laws generally are for situations where a car has repeated problems that a dealer cannot (or does not) fix. That is not the case here.

The issues here are fairly simple to me. Is the diagnosis by the Minnetonka BMW service center accurate? If so, did Suntrup know about the problem when they sold it to you? I don't know what your contracts say, but my guess is that if Suntrup did not know about the problem, they had no duty to fix it. And if the CPO or original warranty doesn't cover the problem, the cost for the fix is on you.

If it were me, I would be spending my time trying to convince the Minnetonka BMW service advisor that his initial diagnosis of mice was probably not correct and that it probably was caused by some event that would be covered under the original warranty. I would also let him know how grateful you would be if that were the case and how you would never consider going anywhere else for service work (either warranty or non-warranty) should they be able to resolve it that way.

Originally Posted by boilers93

Why would he have any claim under Indiana lemon laws? The OP doesn't have any nexus whatsoever with Indiana.

If a lemon law remedy is available, the lemon law of the state where initial retail delivery occurred is generally where jurisdiction applies.

More importantly, why does anyone think that lemon laws would have any relationship to this situation whatsoever? First of all, most lemon laws deal only with the sale of new cars. Second of all, lemon laws generally are for situations where a car has repeated problems that a dealer cannot (or does not) fix. That is not the case here.

It depends on the total repair history of the car. If there were prior failed repairs for SES codes being thrown, and Indiana lemon law applied to used cars as well as new cars, then OP could have a lemon law claim.

Originally Posted by boilers93

Why would he have any claim under Indiana lemon laws? The OP doesn't have any nexus whatsoever with Indiana.

More importantly, why does anyone think that lemon laws would have any relationship to this situation whatsoever? First of all, most lemon laws deal only with the sale of new cars. Second of all, lemon laws generally are for situations where a car has repeated problems that a dealer cannot (or does not) fix. That is not the case here.

The issues here are fairly simple to me. Is the diagnosis by the Minnetonka BMW service center accurate? If so, did Suntrup know about the problem when they sold it to you? I don't know what your contracts say, but my guess is that if Suntrup did not know about the problem, they had no duty to fix it. And if the CPO or original warranty doesn't cover the problem, the cost for the fix is on you.

If it were me, I would be spending my time trying to convince the Minnetonka BMW service advisor that his initial diagnosis of mice was probably not correct and that it probably was caused by some event that would be covered under the original warranty. I would also let him know how grateful you would be if that were the case and how you would never consider going anywhere else for service work (either warranty or non-warranty) should they be able to resolve it that way.

This one pretty much sums it up. I have no idea why anyone even mentioned Lemon laws in the first place. They wouldn't apply when the damage is from a mouse, much like you can't lemon a car that's been flooded in a hurricane just because it keeps acting up...

Originally Posted by armando95

This one pretty much sums it up. I have no idea why anyone even mentioned Lemon laws in the first place. They wouldn't apply when the damage is from a mouse, much like you can't lemon a car that's been flooded in a hurricane just because it keeps acting up...

See post number 15.

Originally Posted by anE934fun

It depends on the total repair history of the car. If there were prior failed repairs for SES codes being thrown, and Indiana lemon law applied to used cars as well as new cars, then OP could have a lemon law claim.

Regardless of the service history this particular issue is not a warrantable item.

Originally Posted by armando95

This one pretty much sums it up. I have no idea why anyone even mentioned Lemon laws in the first place. They wouldn't apply when the damage is from a mouse, much like you can't lemon a car that's been flooded in a hurricane just because it keeps acting up...

Lemon law is about holding the seller up to the responsibility under its expressed warranty coverage. If a defect is known to exist prior to the sale, and the buyer is not informed of such defect, it may not be under the lemon law, but a good lemon attorney should know what law may cover the situation.

I would consult an attorney ASAP, consulting an attorney does not mean not giving the dealer a chance. In fact after talking to an attorney, he/she might tell you how to give the dealer the necessary opportunities to remedy the issue. But you need to do it the right way for your own protection, in case legal representation is needed later, if not now.

Originally Posted by dtc100

Lemon law is about holding the seller up to the responsibility under its expressed warranty coverage. If a defect is known to exist prior to the sale, and the buyer is not informed of such defect, it may not be under the lemon law, but a good lemon attorney should know what law may cover the situation.

I would consult an attorney ASAP, consulting an attorney does not mean not giving the dealer a chance. In fact after talking to an attorney, he/she might tell you how to give the dealer the necessary opportunities to remedy the issue. But you need to do it the right way for your own protection, in case legal representation is needed later, if not now.

I think you make a mistake in trying to classify damage from a hungry mouse as a defect in the car. It's environmental damage. Nothing to do with warranties, nothing to do with Lemons. IF a seller knowingly sells a vehicle with existing damage, that's a totally different thing.

Originally Posted by dtc100

Lemon law is about holding the seller up to the responsibility under its expressed warranty coverage. If a defect is known to exist prior to the sale, and the buyer is not informed of such defect, it may not be under the lemon law, but a good lemon attorney should know what law may cover the situation.

While I agree with the premise of what you're arguing such an action wouldn't fall under lemon laws.

Except for the light, is there anything else wrong with the car? I just wonder how much of the actual damage is there, may be not much at all. Usually electrical systems can't take any significant damage. Either fuses start blowing or some parts of the system or the whole system just stop working.
Can you ask the dealer to let you take a look? May be just a couple wires need to be insulated. The dealer will want to replace the whole harnesses of course.
Something to think about...

Originally Posted by sunny5280

While I agree with the premise of what you're arguing such an action wouldn't fall under lemon laws.

You guys may be correct, and this might even be a blessing for the OP

The poster above asked if the OP should go look at the car himself, which is a good point. But does the OP know enough about cars to make a difference? Or maybe after talking to an attorney, he/she would call up someone to do a 3rd party inspection.

An expert after the inspection may conclude that the dealer could not have missed the defect.

In addition to the 4 other pages of items they replaced/tested to determine this….

Off the 5 page doc BMW of Minnetonka just sent me:

"Performed vehicle test, fault DME:2A15 DMTL Minor leak is stored. Removed the tank venting valve and checked for leaking, no leaking found. Removed the panels from under vehicle and right rear wheel liner to be able to see all lines during smoke test. Smoke tested system, found a leak coming from the hose from the gas filler neck T the fuel pump module. There are damaged wires. Damage is from a rodent and is not covered by warranty.

I'm not handy enough to determine how significant this damage is. It was communicated that most of the cost is labor/diagnostics, not parts for this repair. I'm assuming that into that $2k they are including partial costs to date to determine the issue.

Originally Posted by dtc100

You guys may be correct, and this might even be a blessing for the OP

The poster above asked if the OP should go look at the car himself, which is a good point. But does the OP know enough about cars to make a difference? Or maybe after talking to an attorney, he/she would call up someone to do a 3rd party inspection.

An expert after the inspection may conclude that the dealer could not have missed the defect.

When the SA of a BMW dealership said it's unlikely the selling dealership would have discovered this issue and that they (the SA making the statement) had to tear the car apart to discover it I think he's going to have an uphill battle proving they knew about it.

Originally Posted by XeroxGuy

In addition to the 4 other pages of items they replaced/tested to determine this….

Off the 5 page doc BMW of Minnetonka just sent me:

"Performed vehicle test, fault DME:2A15 DMTL Minor leak is stored. Removed the tank venting valve and checked for leaking, no leaking found. Removed the panels from under vehicle and right rear wheel liner to be able to see all lines during smoke test. Smoke tested system, found a leak coming from the hose from the gas filler neck T the fuel pump module. There are damaged wires. Damage is from a rodent and is not covered by warranty.

Does this not indicate the leaking hose is what was causing the SES light to illuminate and that the wire damage is just an observation made while diagnosing the leak?

Is the leak is the result of mice criminal action? If not than tell them to fix the leak on warranty an not to worry about wiring. Take it to independant garage to fix the wires.

Originally Posted by 55

Is the leak is the result of mice criminal action? If not than tell them to fix the leak on warranty an not to worry about wiring. Take it to independant garage to fix the wires.

WINNAR!!! By the way, I am starting to question whether or not the real issue isn't Minnetonka BMW. Did you authorize them to spend 2k in diagnostic (how the heck!!! do you do that) before they did so? I thought 2k is what they wanted to fix it. Is this what they are saying you are on the hook for them already?

Originally Posted by sunny5280

When the SA of a BMW dealership said it's unlikely the selling dealership would have discovered this issue and that they (the SA making the statement) had to tear the car apart to discover it I think he's going to have an uphill battle proving they knew about it.

Did you not read that page 5? And there are 4 other pages of replacements and repairs according to the OP. Do you still believe, as the dealer told the OP, the SES light was caused by mice?

The dealer's own repair records point to quite a bit of issues in the car that needed repair. I wonder what a third party inspection report would look like

I had lemoned a truck before without going to trial, in talking to my attorney, it was not unusual to hear statements from various people that would not stand cross examination. This is true for all parties. Often times it is not intentional or with ill intent. People just say things without good legal support. Most people are not lawyers.

Originally Posted by dtc100

Did you not read that page 5? And there are 4 other pages of replacements and repairs according to the OP. Do you still believe, as the dealer told the OP, the SES light was caused by mice?

Page 5 was posted while I was composing my response so I did not see it at the time.

With that said I can't say what caused the leak in the hose. It's possible the mice caused it and it's possible they did not. Without further information we don't know. Regardless the answer to this question does not demonstrate knowledge of the issue by the selling dealer. Or if it is perhaps I'm missing it?

Originally Posted by dtc100

The dealer's own repair records point to quite a bit of issues in the car that needed repair. I wonder what a third party inspection report would look like

The only repair records I've seen are those from BMW of Minnetonka regarding the efforts they took to identify the problem. What relevance are you placing in these records?

Originally Posted by sunny5280

Page 5 was posted while I was composing my response so I did not see it at the time.

With that said I can't say what caused the leak in the hose. It's possible the mice caused it and it's possible they did not. Without further information we don't know. Regardless the answer to this question does not demonstrate knowledge of the issue by the selling dealer. Or if it is perhaps I'm missing it?



The only repair records I've seen are those from BMW of Minnetonka regarding the efforts they took to identify the problem. What relevance are you placing in these records?

You were under the assumption the SA at the Minnesota dealer was correct the SES light was caused by mice, and as such the original dealer could not have known the issue existed.

My point is, once all the documents are presented, it is very possible the SES light could have been caused by other issues than chewed-up wires.

If it can be reasonably established that a lot of the things that were discovered and repaired could have triggered the SES light, would you still think the initial SA's statement was correct that the SES light was caused by mice chewing on the wires?