The federal lemon law, the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, does not contain its own statute of limitation. However, the Missouri Court of Appeals has determined that, like other Missouri breach of contract claims, the federal lemon law should use a 4 year statute of limitation. At a minimum, therefore, a consumer should have 4 years from the date of purchase to bring a Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act claim.

But consumers do not know at the time of purchase that the vehicle will be a lemon. Missouri law also says that the statute of limitation should not start until the date on which a consumer knew, or perhaps should have known, about a vehicle’s defects. Unfortunately, while this rule does not apply to the Missouri lemon law, at least one Court decision approximated the start date of the statute of limitation for a federal lemon law claim as the first repair attempt.

Courts have also recently begun to consider the situation where a warranty lasts longer than 4 years. It does not seem fair that consumers with a 6, 7, or even 10 year warranty would be unable to bring a federal lemon law claim while still within their vehicle’s warranty period. Thus, a recent federal court decision suggested that a consumer should have 4 years, starting from the date the warranty expires, to bring a Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act claim.

This information does not constitute legal advice. You should confirm the statute of limitation period for your claim with an attorney as soon as possible.

How many repairs are unreasonable? The Missouri lemon law states that it shall be “presumed” that 4 or more repair attempts are evidence that the manufacturer has failed to fix the vehicle within a reasonable number of attempts.

A presumption is a legal rule about the burden of proof, which requires a fact-finder, such as a judge or jury, to find that the evidence favors a particular party.  For example, the expression “innocent until proven guilty” is just a restatement of the presumption of innocent.  A judge or jury must conclude that the accused is not guilty, absent proper evidence to the contrary.

In a civil trial, the consumer presents evidence first, then the Defendant gets a chance to offer its counter-evidence. Without a presumption, a consumer could present evidence, the manufacturer could offer none, and a consumer could still lose. A judge or jury may simply not be persuaded by the consumer’s evidence.

But in a Missouri lemon law case, if a consumer puts on evidence of 4 or more repair attempts (or 30 or more days out of service), and the manufacturer offers nothing, the consumer wins. A judge or jury would be required to find that the vehicle was a lemon. The number of repair attempts is automatically persuasive evidence.

A presumption can be “rebutted.” In a criminal case, for example, the prosecutor will offer evidence trying to prove guilt.  In a lemon law case, a manufacturer might try to prove that the consumer abused, neglected, or modified or altered the vehicle.  Many manufacturers try to defend Missouri lemon law cases by focusing on whether the problems “substantially impair the use, value or safety” of the consumer’s vehicle. Such evidence would then be weighed by the judge or jury before determining whether the number of repair attempts were unreasonable.

However, a consumer might want to show there have been 3 identical repair attempts, or perhaps there have been 4 repair attempts but not all of them were within the first 12 months of purchase. In that situation, the consumer will not get the benefit of the “presumption,” but should be allowed to put on evidence to try to convince a judge or jury that fewer repair attempts were nevertheless unreasonable. Even if the manufacturer offers little or no evidence, the consumer might still lose the trial, because a judge or jury will not be bound to find in the consumer’s favor.

Many vehicles do not qualify for the Missouri lemon law presumption, but the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (federal lemon law) offers a possible alternative argument.

This means the manufacturer has 2 options: replace the vehicle, or repurchase the vehicle. While the statute does seem to allow the manufacturer to make the choice, no one can force a consumer to agree to a deal they don’t want to take.

If a consumer prefers a replacement, the vehicle must be “comparable.” Typically, this means a consumer must accept the same year, make, and model they currently own. If a newer model year is available, a consumer may be able to upgrade, but would also be responsible for any increase in MSRP. Under a Missouri lemon law replacement, the consumer would still be responsible for paying the manufacturer a “reasonable allowance” for the use of the vehicle.

The repurchase option requires a manufacturer to take the vehicle back and refund the full purchase price of the vehicle, including “all reasonably incurred collateral charges.” The Missouri lemon law helpfully defines “collateral charges” as including all sales tax, license fees, registration fees, title fees and motor vehicle inspections. Whether finance charges should be included will the subject of a later post.