Hitch and Warranty Issues?

You don't need to worry about it. For warranty issues, they'd have to prove whatever defects were specifically caused by your using a hitch to carry bicycles in order to deny the warranty claim.

 

That sounds nice, but that's not how it works in reality. If the manufacturer decides to stiff you on a warranty issue, then you have to prove they were wrong in court or arbitration. So in reality the burden of proving the dealer/manufacturers experts are wrong is on the customer. Keep in mind that if you go the legal route, the judge or arbitrator making the decision may know less about the technical aspects of the issue than you do so will be heavily swayed by which ever side has the most impressive bullchitters.

That said, unless the warranty issue looked like it was caused by an overloaded power train, the hitch would probably never be a consideration.

 

Are you a lawyer or did you make that up? According to the Moss-Magnuson Act, the burden of proof is on the manufacturer.

 

Moss-Magnusson:
The federal minimum standards for full warranties are waived if the warrantor can show that the problem associated with a warranted consumer product was caused by damage while in the possession of the consumer, or by unreasonable use, including a failure to provide reasonable and necessary maintenance.

Burden is on the warrantor.
CHris

 

When a dealer or manufacturer decides that a problem isn't covered by warranty, nothing will happen until the person making the claim takes the case to arbitration or court.

What is your view of what happens when the dealer and manufacturer refuses to cover a warranty claim for the wrong reasons?

If you do go to court or arbitration, the credibility and presentation of the manufacturers reps vs you and your hired guns will have a big effect on the outcome. And, the judge or arbiter will probably be the least technically knowledgeable person involved in the process.

Do you also believe that innocent until proven guilty really works all the time too? Try fighting a speeding ticket where it's just your word against the cops and you weren't speeding. Odds are you will lose.

 

Becomes tough, because even though the burden my be on the warrantor, it then becomes a battle of definition. What is unreasonable use?

If Toyota has not recommended installing a hitch, and does not recommend hauling a even just bicycles with this hitch? Could doing so constitute unreasonable use?

The strangeness comes about because of Toyota's wording. They don't recommend? That in of itself is somewhat vague. Toyota isn't saying you can't do it, and they are not clearly saying doing so will void the warranty..they just don't recommend it...

My guess is some of it is just PR. If Toyota says, Do not put a hitch on a Prius, Do not haul anything...then that get's out in the public...You can't even tow a bicycle on a bicycle hitch on a Prius...

If they simply don't recommend doing it? Then while the burden of proving any damage done to the vehicle was the cause of using the hitch and towing something might be the warrantors...the burden of determining the risk of damage becomes the vehicles owner, and the burden of determining how this might affect warrranty coverage ALSO becomes the owners...

Toyota really shouldn't be so vague. They should either say, you can do it, and provide towing, hauling specs that need to be met....OR they should say, you can't do it...period. Leaving it as a open undefined Non-Recommendation is not right IMO.

 

If it were me I would put the hitch on and never give it another thought. If anything is said tell them you installed the hitch with the intention of pulling a bike trailer but you hadn't gotten around to actually pulling anything yet.

 

You're not doing the OP any favor by arguing for argument's sake. You've already admitted that unless the warranty issue looks like it was caused by an overloaded power train, the hitch would probably never be a consideration.

 

Just put it on and if u need warranty work done just take it off.. less than an hour to do..

 

No argument here, just a small does of reality. The naive people saying the MM act is a panacea are doing other people a dis service.

 

The reality is there are millions of cars with aftermarket parts/add-ons thanks to the MM act and manufacturers know they have their hands severely tied when it comes to disputing claims. You haven't said if you're a lawyer who has actually represented a client involved in such a drama, which would lend credence to your post as a real-world example.