What kind of "short"?Polaris denied my claim because they are saying the LEDs share the same ground as the clutch and are to blame for the short.
I don't think it works to read a law and then pick out a clause that you like, in disregard of the rest.i also found this federal statute, and will be stopping by the dealership for a written denial statement tomorrow.
Federal Warranty Law Summaries
1.The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (15 U.S.C. 2302(C))
This federal law regulates warranties for the protection of consumers. The essence of the law concerning aftermarket auto parts is that a vehicle manufacturer may not condition a written or implied warranty on the consumers using parts or services which are identified by brand, trade, or corporate name (such as the vehicle maker’s brand) unless the parts or service are provided free of charge. The law means that the use of an aftermarket part alone is not cause for denying the warranty. However, the law’s protection does not extend to aftermarket parts in situations where such parts actually caused the damage being claimed under the warranty. Further, consumers are advised to be aware of any specific terms or conditions stated in the warranty which may result in its being voided. The law states in relevant part:
No warrantor of a consumer product may condition his written or implied warranty of such product on the consumers using, in connection with such product, any article or service (other than article or service provided without charge under the terms of the warranty) which is identified by brand, trade or corporate name… (15 U.S.C. 2302(C)).
Why do you believe you should be able to make a warranty claim to Indian based on damaged your actions caused? According to this post you installed LED's that melted the wiring harness. If you installed the LED according to the manufacturers specifications and the light was defective then the you should have a claim against the LED manufacturer for damages to your bike. But I do not see how Indian is involved in that scenario since they did not sell you that LED or say that it would work.according to the dealer it completely melted the insulation on the clutch section, but luckily it didn't go all the back to the VCM or ECM (not sure what the correct name is) I'm not sure about the ground wire but the recommendation is to replace the entire wiring harness.
I'm not going to blame the dealer I think they did right by me. I talked to the service manager and he said Polaris asked for pictures of the bike when they saw I was running LEDs and denied the claim.So, the dealer ratted you out...plain and simple. The warranty company would never know unless they were told. And you can bet the labor time at retail is far more than what the warranty co. would allow. Shitty dealer..........They could have called for the claim and got approval, but they didn't do anything to help their customer. I would take it to another dealer or repair shop just to stick it up their azz...........
The damage was to a separate component. I dont believe the lights caused the damage. If they were the culprit wouldn't they have also fried the wiring to the headlights thus making the headlights also inoperable? Like I said before I was having issues related to the clutch well before I intsalled the headlights.Why do you believe you should be able to make a warranty claim to Indian based on damaged your actions caused? According to this post you installed LED's that melted the wiring harness. If you installed the LED according to the manufacturers specifications and the light was defective then the you should have a claim against the LED manufacturer for damages to your bike. But I do not see how Indian is involved in that scenario since they did not sell you that LED or say that it would work.
I have some LED running installed on my Chief - they were plug and play - but if they cause damage to the bike i would have to seek a remedy/damages from the Chinese manufacturer - which will never happen.
Had you notified the dealer of the clutch issue before you installed the LED? When were the LED's installed and how long has the clutch been an issue?The damage was to a separate component. I dont believe the lights caused the damage. If they were the culprit wouldn't they have also fried the wiring to the headlights thus making the headlights also inoperable? Like I said before I was having issues related to the clutch well before I intsalled the headlights.
Do the lights still work? Have you tested them to prove they work? And if you test the lights - test the ground to to confirm it is not transmitting current? You would need to prove the lights work and the lights are doing nothing more than a normal bulb to defend your claim that the clutch issue is independent of the lights. In the end - your defence would have to be that something else melted the wiring harness .... Not the LEDThe damage was to a separate component. I dont believe the lights caused the damage. If they were the culprit wouldn't they have also fried the wiring to the headlights thus making the headlights also inoperable? Like I said before I was having issues related to the clutch well before I intsalled the headlights.
Since they have already said they are denying the claim, your next recourse is to file a lawsuit through a Consumer Protection Lawyer Consumer Protection Lawyer - Consumer Protection Attorney, Law Firm Directory | FindLawWill using 'aftermarket' or recycled parts void my warranty?
No. An 'aftermarket' part is a part made by a company other than the vehicle manufacturer or the original equipment manufacturer. A 'recycled' part is a part that was made for and installed in a new vehicle by the manufacturer or the original equipment manufacturer, and later removed from the vehicle and made available for resale or reuse. Simply using an aftermarket or recycled part does not void your warranty. The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act makes it illegal for companies to void your warranty or deny coverage under the warranty simply because you used an aftermarket or recycled part. The manufacturer or dealer can, however, require consumers to use select parts if those parts are provided to consumers free of charge under the warranty.
Still, if it turns out that the aftermarket or recycled part was itself defective or wasn't installed correctly, and it causes damage to another part that is covered under the warranty, the manufacturer or dealer has the right to deny coverage for that part and charge you for any repairs. The FTC says the manufacturer or dealer must show that the aftermarket or recycled part caused the need for repairs before denying warranty coverage.
The Magnuson-Moss Act makes it easier for consumers to sue for breach of warranty by making breach of warranty a violation of federal law. The Act allows the consumer more control over whether a case is heard in federal or state court. A consumer can obtain federal jurisdiction under the Act by claiming at least $50,000 in economic damages, a lower requirement than for typical federal jurisdiction. It also allows prevailing consumers to recover court costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees. Additionally, larger cases involving many consumers can be brought in federal court as a class action suit under the Act.
While the Act makes bringing consumer lawsuits for breach of warranty easier, it encourages companies to use informal dispute resolution to settle warranty disputes with customers. The Act allows warranties to include a provision requiring customers to try to resolve warranty disputes through informal dispute resolution before going to court. However, if a warranty includes such a provision, the dispute resolution process must meet the requirements stated in the FTC's Dispute Resolution Rule.
Yes it is possible. Some manufacturers protect from this by using diodes on their grounds. This keeps any floating potential in the circuit from finding other paths to ground through other circuits. This comes into play on shared grounds. Others get away from this by using separate grounds for each circuit. DeanIf it was caused by a weak or improperly mounted ground, then the ground would be to blame correct?