BigGuy82
Well-known member
I don't think the actual legislation requires manufacturers to prove anything where they have a stated exclusion in the warranty. The FTC however has issued clarifying statements which say that the manufacturer must be able to demonstrate that the damage was caused by xyz. However, the FTC document also says that its guidance is just guidance and not law.
More significantly, Magnuson Moss allows manufacturers to state warranty exclusions in their Limited Warranty Statement. If you take the time to read your truck warranty, you'll find some exclusions related to fuel quality, maintenance, etc.
If the manufacturer denies coverage under one of those exclusions, based on FTC guidance, they might be expected to have to demonstrate the connection. Note that "demonstrate" is not the same as "prove" and probably puts less of a burden on the manufacturer if you want to challenge their denial.
When our GMC fuel system disintegrated, one of the first things that was done by the dealer was to analyze the fuel. No doubt this was at the direction of GMC. The warranty statement would have allowed a denial of warranty if the analysis showed a fuel problem that could have caused the damage.
They did cover under warranty. But if they had refused, as Ford has been reported to commonly do, I would have had to try and recover from the fuel supplier, or argue with the manufacturer's analysis. And of course, they have "science" and engineers on their side, prepared to "demonstrate" why the fuel sample justifies the warranty exclusion.
So Magnuson Moss provides some protection. But don't think for a second that it completely insulates you.
"I'm from the government and I'm here to help ..."