[PaulDay]

Should have been spotted long ago during normal car maintenance.

Go after the people who worked on the car and didn't bother to tell you that there was a very obvious rust issue developing with the suspension. A mechanic has a duty to report developing issues like this. If the owner choses to ignore the issue, than this is what happens.

This is a common failure of all autos driven where salt is used on the roads and regular undercarriage inspections aren't performed. I've seen plenty of this in all makes and models.

Have a good day.

 

[PaulDay]

A mechanic working for Nissan took me aside and said that the current state inspection protocol would not have noticed it. The larger point is that the Nissan inspection specialist ( see comment from letter) said that Nissan saw no issue relating to the failure. There clearly is an issue. If this is common then Nissan has an obligation to put that area of inspection in a priority category. If Nissan did not know about it, they do now.

Ever heard of BSPYA? Well that's all that letter and the mechanic was doing. Of course, they don't see a problem with their product. It was a lack of maintenance. Rust like that takes YEARS to get to that point. Whoever was looking after your car mechanically did you a big disservice by not pointing it out.

That rust damage would have been clearly visible anytime during the last two years when ever that tire was removed.

Good luck.

Have a good day.

 

[PaulDay]

Don't want to burst any bubbles here, but the pictures I see here are of a rusting issue with a control arm. Nowhere am I seeing frame sections rusted.

Rusting is so prevalent that there is insurance just for that. BTW, for Nissan. it's good for 5 years, unlimited miles, common coverage offered for most of the cars on their list.

New Car Rust & Corrosion Warranty Guide (unhaggle.com)

Seeing that the part rusted is an external part, painted with a different process than the whole-body frame corrosion dip, it's actually considered a consumable part. Yes, Nissan has different paint specs for consumable parts. Parts that Nissan knows from history that will possibly fail before the life of the vehicle are not given the same treatment. Only the body frame has to last until the vehicle's EOL, which is now rated for 10 years/250K miles.

MM, I know that you're frustrated, I would be too. But from experience, you're going in the wrong direction. You're wasting money sending the part out for analysis.

As a former mechanic, it is a mechanic's duty to report any issue that can potentially affect the drivability. It's up to the vehicle owner at that point if they want the issue resolved. If the issue is severe enough, the garage can prevent the owner from driving the vehicle off the premises, requiring the owner to get a tow truck to remove it.

You were failed in this aspect. If you have copies of receipts of when work was done that would have involved that area, then you have a good chance for some legal recourse.

With these receipts and pictures, you can go to a lawyer and claim "Negligence of Duty.". In other words, the dealer/garage failed to notify you of a seriously potentially dangerous driving situation. The lawyer might send the part out for analysis, but more than likely will subpoena the dealer/garage for the work records, revealing the mechanics who worked on the car in that area who can than be disposed on the condition when they worked on it.

Nissan will never let it get that far. They will settle as soon as they get the request for the work records, if they were the ones that worked on car in that area within the last year. If it was an independent garage, then they can also be sued, but insist that Nissan perform the repairs as part of the settlement. Settlement should include getting the vehicle back to a drivability state, refund any money out of pocket since it started and your lawyer's fees.

If you go this route, expect it to take a while, but the chances greatly increase that you'll get some satisfaction down the road as opposed to the route you're headed.

Good luck.

Have a good day.

 

[PaulDay]

Outstanding advice, will keep you updated. MM

Here, have a little more ammo:

Nissan maintenance service checklist

• Replace engine oil and filter.
• Rotate tires.
• Inspect axle & suspension parts.
• Inspect brake lines and cables.
• Inspect brake pads, rotors, drums & linings.

This is supposed to be done every time a vehicle is put on the lift. Checked and signed by the mechanic.

There should have been a note on the last workorder stating a rusting issue with the rear control arm. If not, then they didn't do their service checklist and lied about when it they signed off.

If it's there, and you signed off when picking up the car, then it will be on you.

This is why it's important for a lawyer to get the full records and go from there.

Again, good luck.

Have a good day.

 

[PaulDay]

So we are to believe that two teams of factory trained specialists on two occasions, seven months apart, could see no problem. Well Jeff, I think that is the problem.
How is a consumer supposed to know about a major problem with the safety of a Nissan Murano, when two crack teams of Nissan repair specialists did not notice. Please explain to me how that is possible.

Well, the first one lied about doing the inspection when he was doing the work on the car. This is a failing of the service manager for not reinforcing their 27-point inspection. Dealerships make their money on repairs, so making a mechanic go thru a check list will usually find problems like this on an older car, generating more income for the dealership.

The second one is addressing it from a point of view that this is a normal consumable part and up to the owner to repair. It's just not being said that you should have been notified the last time the car was on the lift of the deteriorating control arm. That is something that they're hoping won't come up, along with proof that the inspection was not done.

Whenever you bring your car to a dealership for servicing, the worst thing is just dropping it off and picking it up. It's just a big black hole to the owner what was really done and not done. You have to rely on what's on the paper.

Make an appointment, plan on staying while having the car serviced if possible. If there's a window overlooking the bay area, plan on staying there and watching your car while it's being worked on. Word will get around and the mechanic will be put on notice that they're being observed. For all they know, you could be someone from an agency looking for issues, kind of like an undercover shopper or fraud investigator.

I actually had a service manager come over to the window where I was watching cats being installed on my 2003 Murano and try to distract me away over to their free coffee bar. I wasn't having it and a few minutes later, there was a little discussion between several mechanics and the service manager. The guy working on my car left and another mechanic took over. When finished and getting the key, I asked why the change in mechanics in the middle of the job. Oh, the mechanic was sick and sent home. My feeling was he was the shop screwup and they didn't want to take the chance on him doing something wrong while being observed.

Have a good day.

 

[PaulDay]

Actually as luck would have it, Piazza Nissan of Ardmore, on 08/02/2022 did some work on vehicle VIN No.: JN8AZ1MW4DW301652. The work required the car to be put on a lift and the charge was for $1238.50.

On the Invoice 236055, Item B , Health Check, MPI, "Perform Nissan’s 27 point vehicle inspection." Nissan’s Complimentary Multi-Point Inspection (CMPI). There are six categories to the CMPI.
The third category is titled UNDER VEHICLE. The first item is Rear Shocks/Rear Subframe/ Suspension.

I was talking with a friend of mine, a retired corp. lawyer that I've requested help from in the past. He was looking at your issue from Nissan's point of view and how they'd react.

The first question that he had was: "What was the miles between 8/02/22 when serviced by Nissan and when it failed."

The less the miles, the better. If it's under 1k, then it's a no brainer that the check list was not performed.

Several take-aways from his conversation.

First, Nissan as a corporation will involve legal as soon as they get a official "Notice of Discovery" from a lawyer. Needed from them will the tech's signoff, any written/video pertaining to the 27-point inspection training.

Guess what, Universal Nissan has a training video used for new techs. It's posted on YouTube!

Nissan Service: Multi Point Inspection - YouTube

2:35 - 2:40 First tech states that the other tech was doing an underbody inspection. You can see the other tech moving from the back towards the front driver's side suspension and starting to check it with a light wand.

If your tech had inspected the rear suspension in this manner, then he would have surely seen the excessively rusted suspension part and should have checked the inspection report with that information so it could be passed to the customer.

Second is that all that is really needed to win is the "Notice of Discover" letter sent asking for the tech's signoff, written/video of training, and any shop camera surveillance video pertaining to your vehicle's repair.

With the letter also describing the danger of failure at highway speeds, possibly causing the vehicle to overturn and flip causing serious injury to the occupants, and photos of the rusted part and failure. Also, that you as the owner rely on the dealer to be truthful with their inspection report to notify you of any potential driving safety issues.

After research on their part, they will probably see it as a no-win situation and offer a settlement.

Third, the thing about a tech required to report imminent failure of a part that can cause a car to lose control and crash? Seems that it's stood up in court, even though there no written law. In other words, there's been case precedent resolving this issue.

He said any lawyer can write up a letter in this manner for a flat fee, usually about $500, with the understanding that they will be called if it comes to legal action.

Take everything written here at face value. As he said, no two cases are the same, similar, but still different. But he did say, from his understanding of it, it seems to be a good case in your favor if handled right.

Good luck.

Have a good day.