Agreed, that's how it should be handled. I suspect Big Gunz would have been happy with that resolution too.
Unfortunately, it sounds like he's getting stuck with the whole bill minus a small discount (still out of pocket well over a grand). IMHO, that's unacceptable. Sure the bumper to bumper is expired by several months, but the etorque is still covered. It failed due to a known manufacturer defect. I can see where FCA won't cover the light or window replacement under warranty, but it's extremely disappointing to hear that they're trying to stick the consumer with the bill on the etorque system that is still in coverage by claiming "flood" damage.
That excuse may make sense if this wasn't a known problem, but there are multiple TSB's on this very issue. How can they claim the consumer caused the failure? They can't, but apparently they are.
It would appear from the class action suit that it's not the only dealership doing it, and someone finally decided to do something about it.
Unfortunately, it sounds like he's getting stuck with the whole bill minus a small discount (still out of pocket well over a grand). IMHO, that's unacceptable. Sure the bumper to bumper is expired by several months, but the etorque is still covered. It failed due to a known manufacturer defect. I can see where FCA won't cover the light or window replacement under warranty, but it's extremely disappointing to hear that they're trying to stick the consumer with the bill on the etorque system that is still in coverage by claiming "flood" damage.
That excuse may make sense if this wasn't a known problem, but there are multiple TSB's on this very issue. How can they claim the consumer caused the failure? They can't, but apparently they are.
It would appear from the class action suit that it's not the only dealership doing it, and someone finally decided to do something about it.