• Mar 17, 2011
The California court system has found that Toyota Motor Insurance Services does not violate the state's consumer warranty law. According to Automotive News, a court of appeal found that the contracts offer enough services outside of the factory warranty to be considered legal. Toyota was originally sued after Weber DeSiqueira purchased a then-new 2007 Tundra. At the time, the vehicle came with a three-year, 36,000 mile warranty, but DeSiqueira also laid down $1,145 for a Toyota Extra Care Vehicle Service Agreement. The lawsuit alleged that the service agreement covered the same items as the factory, putting the Japanese automaker in violation of the California warranty law.
But a Los Angeles judge dismissed the case without allowing it to go to trial. DeSiqueira appealed, and a three-judge panel unanimously decided that the automaker's service agreement and the factory warranty are not identical. The plaintiff sought damages and retribution in the form of a refund for the price of the service agreement for himself and other car buyers who had opted into the program.

Despite the fact that the appeals court effectively scuttled Desiqueira's lawsuit, one judge did suggest that the consumer may have a legitimate claim that Toyota engages in deceptive sales practices by leading buyers to believe that the service agreement offers greater protection than it actually does.

[Source: Automotive News – sub. req]


I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.


    • 1 Second Ago
  • 10 Comments
      • 3 Years Ago
      If one reads what one is about to purchase, or even the literature in the showroom describing the features of the "service contract" (in parentheses because there is a huge difference between these and a warranty.) there is little left to dispute. typically a service contract offers additional time/mileage coverage to a set listing of vehicle components, whereas a warrnty will provide a broader coverage mirroring the original factory coverage in most cases. Depending on what state you live in, the rules governing each may change.
      • 3 Years Ago
      Just like any service contract they are crap and don't cover as much as your led to believe or cover as much as you wish they did. Also this was a "NEW" truck at the time. Why did the person even entertain the notion of buying additional coverage??
        • 3 Years Ago
        Actually, it depends widely on who provides the service contract (it isn't a warranty, this is an important legal distinction). Third party providers have a tendency to be shady, but most manufacturers stand behind their service contracts fairly well.
        • 3 Years Ago
        oh contrare....depends ENTIRELY on the manufacturer.....and this particular manufacturer seems to have a certain habit of misleading as of late....now, I will prepare for downvoting....lol )
        • 3 Years Ago
        thefourthheat.....reveiw your facts....they are MANUFACTURER warranties...NOT Dealer warranties....
      • 3 Years Ago
      Note the last paragraph, they didnt want the lawsuit wasn't just about him, his lawyers obviously wanted class action status, a cash cow for any law firm.
      • 3 Years Ago
      Hiring a lawyer seems like an expensive way to get $1100 back. I wonder if the lawyer was working for free in the hopes of developing the class-action suit?

      Regardless, rather than admitting to the entire world that he was dumb enough to pay $1100 for nothing, he really should have just cut his losses and moved on with his life.
      • 3 Years Ago
      "Despite the fact that the appeals court effectively scuttled Desiqueira's lawsuit, one judge did suggest that the consumer may have a legitimate claim that Toyota engages in deceptive sales practices by leading buyers to believe that the service agreement offers greater protection than it actually does."

      I'm willing to pretty much bet my salary that this is originally what Desiqueira intended to resolve. Unfortunately for him, he didn't word it exactly this way in the lawsuit, which is why he not only lost but wasted his time appealing.

      My friend's husband is a patent attorney and I can't tell you how many cases his clients have won simply because of a technicality regarding how the plaintiff wrote the original complaint. One group of plaintiffs lost in court over a will because of where the will's author placed commas.

      -R
        • 3 Years Ago
        I"m so sure of your facts, bacause courts all around the world do not allow amended complaints after a hearing from a judge... cuz, you know... that would be so wrong.