Lemon Law
The Lemon Law provides a consumer's right to a refund or replacement vehicle if after a reasonable number of repair attempts, the manufacturer can not make the consumer vehicle under express warranties applicable. A "reasonable number of repair attempts" have been made when the vehicle has a defect that substantially affects its use, safety, or value, and the vehicle has been:
1. repair four or more times during the first 24.000 miles or two years of service;
2. out of service for a total of 30 days during the same period and the default continues, or
3. repaired two or more times during the first year or the warranty period, which is shorter, and the defect can cause death or serious bodily injury when driving the vehicle.
LAW ON THE NEW LAW OF MOTOR VEHICLE LEMON (PA 07-212)
The act replaced the three-member arbitration panels that hear new motor vehicles in conflict with the lemon law only referees. It also establishes standards for the referees allowed the commissioner of consumer protection to refer more cases to arbitration organizations, and reviews the conditions under which disputes can be resolved solely on the basis of written documents.
Under previous law (1), the commissioner of consumer protection had to appoint three person arbitration panel, only one member of which might be directly involved in the production of a product or service for sale, ( 2) the three members were to serve without compensation and be interested in consumer disputes, and (3) appointments were for two years at the discretion of the commissioner. The act instead requires the commissioner to appoint the persons as arbitrators. An arbitrator appointed must (1) be a member of an arbitration organization, (2) pay, and no (3) be an employee or independent contractor of a company that manufactures, distributes, sells or services of motor vehicles .
Under previous law, the commissioner may refer disputes to the American Arbitration Association. The law also allows refer disputes to arbitration bodies. It prohibits an arbitration organization or any arbitrator appointed to be a member of a motor vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repairer. It requires the organization to continue the arbitration procedures of the lemon law.
By law, when a consumer requests the lemon law arbitration, he or she must provide all relevant information DCP to the controversy over the complaint form available to the department. Before the law requires the claim form to claim that consumers can submit additional written or oral testimony. The law removes this requirement.
The law allows the department instead of filing a case to an arbitrator solely based on written documents of the parties, but only if the consumer and the automaker's agreement in writing and signing the agreement after the customer has requested arbitration.
PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY
The proposal to replace the panels with the referees only originated with DCP. The implementing legislation was originally part of SB 1059, a bill heard and observed the General Law Committee. Although SB 1059 died, their content has been added to SB 739 and enacted as PA 07-212.
Only one person, DCP Mandyck Deputy Commissioner Jackie, spoke on the SB 1059. Mandyck said the bill "more efficient and effective use of staff time, effort and resources." (General Law Committee Transcript, 27 February 2007).
DCP and the Attorney General submitted a written testimony. DCP referee indicates that cancellations were causing an undue burden on the DCP staff and it was difficult to find "a substitute arbitrator last minute." The attorney general's testimony indicates that he agreed with the proposed change. Both agencies asked the Commission to amend the original proposal that the legislature did. Copies of oral and written testimony are attached.
Legislative procedures
Representative Stone introduced SB 1059 in the House of Representatives on 22 May 2007, and declared that was requested by DCP and establish "a faster hearing process." A copy of the transcript.
|
