You take your new vehicle to the dealership.
They replace a part.
The problem returns.
They replace another part.
The problem returns again.
Then another component is replaced.
And you’re still driving the same defective vehicle.
At some point, you may start asking:
How many parts can they replace before someone has to acknowledge that the vehicle has a serious problem?
There is no simple number.
But a repeated cycle of repairs and recurring problems deserves careful attention.
A repair does not necessarily mean a successful repair
The manufacturer has a right to attempt to repair a warranty problem.
That is part of the Lemon Law process.
But the goal is not simply to replace parts.
The goal is to bring the vehicle into conformity with the applicable warranty.
If the same problem continues despite repeated repairs, that history can become significant.
Look at the pattern, not just the parts
Suppose your repair history looks like this:
Visit 1: Transmission problem. Software update.
Visit 2: Same problem. Sensor replaced.
Visit 3: Same problem. Valve body replaced.
Visit 4: Same problem. Transmission reprogrammed.
Visit 5: Same problem. Transmission replaced.
The important fact isn’t merely that five different repairs occurred.
The important fact is that the same underlying problem continued despite those attempts.
Keep every repair order
Don’t throw away an old repair order because you think the latest one is more important.
Keep everything.
You may eventually have a stack of documents showing:
• repeated complaints;
• repeated diagnoses;
• parts replaced;
• software updates;
• periods out of service;
• rental vehicles;
• towing;
• technician comments; and
• continued complaints after repairs.
That can provide a much clearer picture of the vehicle’s history.
What if the dealer says the new problem is unrelated?
That is possible.
A vehicle can have multiple unrelated defects.
But you should not have to determine the legal significance yourself.
Document the symptoms.
If the problem feels the same to you, tell the dealer.
For example:
“The vehicle is experiencing the same hesitation I reported on my previous repair order.”
Let the dealership investigate.
What if the manufacturer says every repair was successful?
The repair records can help answer that question.
If a repair order says:
“Repair completed.”
and the next repair order says:
“Customer reports same condition returned.”
there is a chronological record showing that the problem was not permanently resolved from the customer’s perspective.
What if the dealership replaces an expensive component?
A major component replacement can be important.
Examples include:
• engine;
• transmission;
• battery pack;
• electric drive unit;
• steering component;
• brake system component; or
• major electronic control module.
But the size of the repair does not automatically determine whether a vehicle is legally a lemon.
The facts still matter.
What if the vehicle is repaired successfully after several attempts?
That can change the analysis.
The objective of the Lemon Law is not to give consumers a new vehicle merely because
something went wrong.
Manufacturers are generally entitled to a reasonable opportunity to repair warranty defects.
The more important question is what happens after those opportunities.
If the vehicle is finally repaired and the serious problem does not return, the situation may be different from one where the defect continues.
What if the vehicle spends a lot of time at the dealership?
Track the days.
Nevada law contains a specific presumption involving a vehicle being out of service for repairs for 30 or more cumulative calendar days during the applicable period, subject to statutory qualifications.
Don’t estimate.
Use the repair orders to calculate the actual time.
A vehicle might have been at the dealership for more time than the owner realizes because parts were delayed, diagnostic work was performed, or the vehicle remained at the dealership after the repair was completed.
What should you do if the cycle continues?
At some point, stop looking at each repair independently.
Create a complete chronology.
For each visit, identify:
Problem reported
Date
Mileage
Diagnosis
Repair
Days out of service
Problem returned?
That document can be extremely useful when evaluating whether you have a potential claim.
Could this be a Nevada Lemon Law case?
Potentially.
Nevada’s statute addresses situations where a manufacturer or authorized dealer is unable to conform a new vehicle to applicable express warranties after a reasonable number of attempts and the defect substantially impairs the vehicle’s use and value.
The statute also provides specific presumptions involving four repair attempts for the same continuing nonconformity and 30 cumulative days out of service.
The important point is that a repair history is evidence.
The manufacturer may have one interpretation of the history.
You may have another.
A lawyer evaluating the case should be able to look at the actual records rather than simply asking, “How many times did you take it in?”
Take the 30-Second Nevada New Car Problem Quiz
We’ll ask about your vehicle, warranty, repair history and time out of service.
Precision Injury Law represents Nevada consumers with qualifying vehicle warranty and Lemon Law problems.
This site is for informational use only, does not provide legal advice, and does not create an attorney-client relationship through browsing or form submissions