Articles Posted in Chrysler Lemon Law

Owners of 2009 and 2010 Chrysler Dodge Journeys should be on high a alert of a potential design defect in the vehicle’s braking system. Our law office is noticing a pattern of increase consumer concerns and complaints relating to premature defective brake rotors and pads.

The 2009 and 2010 Dodge Journey SUVs weigh approximately 3,800 pounds. Our research leads us to believe that the brake pads and rotors may be the ill-fitting (in terms of size and thickness) to handle the Journey’s weight and size. This will cause your brake to wear much sooner than normal and may potentially cause brake failure within the first 10,000 to 12,000 miles of driving.

When you take your Journey to an authorized Chrysler service center for warranty work, some possible “band-aid” repairs may include: shaving/ resurfacing brake rotors and replacing brake pads. Remember to keep all your repair invoices to document your repair attempts.

I am currently working on a Texas Lemon Law case against Chrylser and have been searching several databases for information regarding engine-related defects in Chrysler cars. I stumbled upon this frequently asked question (faq) document drafted in part by allpar and thought I will post a segment of the faq for those who may be interested in reading this information about Chrysler vehicles.

Please be advised that this posting is not legal advice. Each case is different. If you suspect that you may have a viable new Chrysler lemon vehicle, then you should contact an attorney as soon as possible. Keep in mind that there are Texas Lemon Law statute of limitations. My Law Office is not responsible for any action, if any, that is taken as a result of this faq.

To read the Chrysler faq, click here => Download file

Earlier this year, a husband and wife from Lampasas, Texas (Lampasas is 30 miles west of Killeen, Texas) contacted me in regards to a new 2008 Jeep Liberty that they purchased in 2008 that keeps manifesting an abnormal knocking noise near the engine area. Like most lemon law victims, they took the vehicle in numerous times and the problem never went away.

After months of frustration in dealing with the Chrysler service centers, the couple called my office and I took on their case. I am happy to report that the the case settled in favor of my clients and they are now happy with the results of their lemon law claim. This is the link to their testimonial. (Look for this testimonial entry: T. and D. B., Lampasas, Texas, April 13, 2009).

Two new car buyers purchased the same year, make, and model vehicle from Chrysler. The main difference between these two buyers is that one purchased their vehicle in Texas, while the other purchased it in California.

Quiz: in the event that both vehicles are defective lemon cars, which consumer is better off and more likely to get a repurchase or replacement?

Answer: the California car owner is more likely to win their lemon law case. Why, you ask?

I recently visited another lemon law blog that specifically caters to consumers in other non-Texas states. Since December 2007, attorney Sergei Lemberg has been posting great and insightful blog articles pertaining to the lemon laws in the state of New York, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Maryland.

In his recent blog post dated on August 18th, 2008, Mr. Lemberg outlines the requirements of the New York Lemon Law. Luckily for New Yorkers, the New York Lemon Law appears to cover consumer owners who were not the original owner of the subject vehicle. Unfortunately, this is where the Texas lemon law primarily contrasts with the New York Lemon Law.

In January of 2008, Mr. Lemberg was also featured in the New York Daily Newspaper about his recent legal work for consumers such as Carmine Maiorano, who purchased a defective Dodge Magnum. Mr. Lemberg was able to take on the case against car manufacturer Chrysler and assist Carmen with his defective Chrysler car.

With Chrysler’s recent announcement of 500,000 recalled vehicles, it is very possible that there may be a Texas lemon law issue involved here. The recall pertains to 2001 – 2002 Dodge vehicles for the following models: Dakota trucks, Durango sport utility vehicles (SUV), Ram vans, and Ram pickup.

The reason for the recall is due to faulty gearshift blocker and bracket assembly components. With a faulty gearshift blocker or bracket assembly, your vehicle could shift out of park, even your without your key being in the ignition. No, this is nothing similar to the robot autopilot car I wrote about several weeks ago.

So far, there has been 9 known nonfatal injuries related to this product defect.

Unfortunately, Chrysler will not be notifying owners of this vehicle until January 2008. It seems like this is a terribly irresponsible thing to do, especially since it took Chrysler 6 to 7 years to finally announce a defect on its 2001/2002 model vehicles and the fact that nine injuries and incidents had to occur before the Detroit-based company is willing to do anything about the issue. Now, they’re going to wait an additional minimum of 21 days to let owners know about it. What if a Chrysler car owner suffers from this defect from now until January? …and what if this 10th incident becomes fatal?
Continue reading