Amended Settlement in Klee v. Nissan

[DaveinOlyWA]

My Blink did register eventually but only after escalating the issue. it took about 8 days to correct I believe. NRG took about 1½ days while not sure when AV started working since I received NOTHING as far as feedback from them but it would be at least 4 days but less than 8

 

[JPWhite]

My Blink did register eventually but only after escalating the issue. it took about 8 days to correct I believe. NRG took about 1½ days while not sure when AV started working since I received NOTHING as far as feedback from them but it would be at least 4 days but less than 8

That's interesting. eVgo was easy peasy, took seconds worked first time.

It is very troubling that EV charging is

A. Unnecessarily Complex and
B. So Inconsistent between different users/regions.

 

[DaveEV]

Anyone still see the 90-day EZ-Charge access as nearly worthless?

I very rarely charge in public. If I did, I would already probably pay for the EVgo subscription which covers 95% of the public DC charging here in San Diego at nominal extra cost ($0.10 / min, or $3 for a QC on top of the $15/mo subscription).

Most of the other times I might need/use public charging, I'd rather have access to L2 at my destination, but most of those are Blink if there are any available and thus unreliable at best. Which makes it easier to just drive the Prius.

I'd rather just have the $50 that I might use towards 5 EVgo charges at the pay-as-you-go rate.

 

[palmermd]

Anyone still see the 90-day EZ-Charge access as nearly worthless?

I very rarely charge in public. If I did, I would already probably pay for the EVgo subscription which covers 95% of the public DC charging here in San Diego at nominal extra cost ($0.10 / min, or $3 for a QC on top of the $15/mo subscription).

Most of the other times I might need/use public charging, I'd rather have access to L2 at my destination, but most of those are Blink if there are any available and thus unreliable at best. Which makes it easier to just drive the Prius.

I'd rather just have the $50 that I might use towards 5 EVgo charges at the pay-as-you-go rate.

My thoughts as well. We've never used the DCQC port on our car. There is really only one unit in town that we might use and its not in a location that we pass during errands. I'm not sure why they forced us to get the card other than I'm sure they knew we would get no use from it.

 

[JPWhite]

Anyone still see the 90-day EZ-Charge access as nearly worthless?

I very rarely charge in public. If I did, I would already probably pay for the EVgo subscription which covers 95% of the public DC charging here in San Diego at nominal extra cost ($0.10 / min, or $3 for a QC on top of the $15/mo subscription).

Most of the other times I might need/use public charging, I'd rather have access to L2 at my destination, but most of those are Blink if there are any available and thus unreliable at best. Which makes it easier to just drive the Prius.

I'd rather just have the $50 that I might use towards 5 EVgo charges at the pay-as-you-go rate.

I've not had benefit after a month of activation. Had expected it would be more useful. Disappointing for sure.

 

[TomT]

I absolutely agree!

Anyone still see the 90-day EZ-Charge access as nearly worthless?
I'd rather just have the $50 that I might use towards 5 EVgo charges at the pay-as-you-go rate.

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

Anyone still see the 90-day EZ-Charge access as nearly worthless?

I very rarely charge in public. If I did, I would already probably pay for the EVgo subscription which covers 95% of the public DC charging here in San Diego at nominal extra cost ($0.10 / min, or $3 for a QC on top of the $15/mo subscription).

Most of the other times I might need/use public charging, I'd rather have access to L2 at my destination, but most of those are Blink if there are any available and thus unreliable at best. Which makes it easier to just drive the Prius.

I'd rather just have the $50 that I might use towards 5 EVgo charges at the pay-as-you-go rate.

my main reason for doing it was to profile the different fast charge companies. The other is that I am getting into the last 8 months of my 3 year lease. On my 2011, 90% of my degradation happened during the last 8 months. I am hoping the 2013 holds up better but if it doesn't, I will need fast charging or a lot more gassing.

Unfortunately, the timing is not the greatest and I thought about waiting until the last day to register the card to get the most mileage but even with a slow period at work recently, I was able to get over $20 worth in barely a month and work will be picking up next week

 

[Nubo]

I'd rather just have the $50 .

As would most owners, I expect. But of course that would cost Nissan a lot more money than mailing out thousands of pieces of plastic that won't get used. :roll:

 

[JPWhite]

I'd rather just have the $50 .

As would most owners, I expect. But of course that would cost Nissan a lot more money than mailing out thousands of pieces of plastic that won't get used. :roll:

The attorneys did just fine however.....
Class action at its finest.

 

[GerryAZ]

Yes, the attorneys did very well for themselves at the expense of the class members. Nissan did not fight the settlement because it essentially cost them nothing except attorney fees. They already provided the 5-year 60,000-mile capacity warranty (retroactive on 2011 and 2012 models and included from the start on 2013 models) to minimize bad publicity and loss of new sales so their only extra costs were for the charge cards.

Gerry

 

[TomT]

But, Nissan would never have provided that warranty if the lawsuit and its attendant publicity had not forced them in to it!

Nissan did not fight the settlement because it essentially cost them nothing except attorney fees. They already provided the 5-year 60,000-mile capacity warranty (retroactive on 2011 and 2012 models and included from the start on 2013 models) to minimize bad publicity and loss of new sales so their only extra costs were for the charge cards.

 

[JPWhite]

But, Nissan would never have provided that warranty if the lawsuit and its attendant publicity had not forced them it to it!

Nissan did not fight the settlement because it essentially cost them nothing except attorney fees. They already provided the 5-year 60,000-mile capacity warranty (retroactive on 2011 and 2012 models and included from the start on 2013 models) to minimize bad publicity and loss of new sales so their only extra costs were for the charge cards.

So true.

Judging by the lackluster sales of the LEAF recently (despite the introduction of the 30kWh models late last year) they may not have done enough to ward off the downdraft from the bad publicity. Abysmal resale values reflect market driven concerns about the LEAF car.

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

So true.

Judging by the lackluster sales of the LEAF recently (despite the introduction of the 30kWh models late last year) they may not have done enough to ward off the downdraft from the bad publicity. Abysmal resale values reflect market driven concerns about the LEAF car.

sales are lackluster because

1) EVs are too expensive

2) Nissan thought it would be a good idea to force consumers to pay more by removing the cheap option

I can guarantee that an S trim with a 30 Kwh battery would sell like hotcakes

 

[JPWhite]

So true.

Judging by the lackluster sales of the LEAF recently (despite the introduction of the 30kWh models late last year) they may not have done enough to ward off the downdraft from the bad publicity. Abysmal resale values reflect market driven concerns about the LEAF car.

sales are lackluster because

1) EVs are too expensive

2) Nissan thought it would be a good idea to force consumers to pay more by removing the cheap option

I can guarantee that an S trim with a 30 Kwh battery would sell like hotcakes

You'll have to explain your #2 reason for me. What did they remove?

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

So true.

Judging by the lackluster sales of the LEAF recently (despite the introduction of the 30kWh models late last year) they may not have done enough to ward off the downdraft from the bad publicity. Abysmal resale values reflect market driven concerns about the LEAF car.

sales are lackluster because

1) EVs are too expensive

2) Nissan thought it would be a good idea to force consumers to pay more by removing the cheap option

I can guarantee that an S trim with a 30 Kwh battery would sell like hotcakes

You'll have to explain your #2 reason for me. What did they remove?

A 30 kwh S trim...

the popularity of the S trim from 2013 to 2015 should have been hint enough but apparently it was not.

If you look at the general car; the entry level trim generally has about 10-15% while the trim one notch below the top has about 50%

In the LEAF we see the S trim taking half with SV/SL taking the other half...

Somehow, Nissan thought adding the extra range would be the push the higher trims needed to mirror what other cars enjoy. Only proves that after 5 years, they still have not really learned where their customers live...

 

[DNAinaGoodWay]

+1, also, there's a lot of used Leafs around now, so folks who can live with short range have more low cost options.

 

[sub3marathonman]

I did try to search, but didn't really see what I was wondering.

In this settlement, is it a binding part of the requirement to have had all the annual battery checks that Nissan initially stated was required?

I didn't really see that in the settlement language, and wondered if it was in writing somewhere that it is or isn't required.

 

[davewill]

I did try to search, but didn't really see what I was wondering.

In this settlement, is it a binding part of the requirement to have had all the annual battery checks that Nissan initially stated was required?

I didn't really see that in the settlement language, and wondered if it was in writing somewhere that it is or isn't required.

They are "required" but by Nissan, not the settlement. However, the requirement has no teeth in it. Nissan, by law, can't refuse warranty coverage simply because of missed maintenance (and this isn't even exactly maintenance). They would have to assert that the missed maintenance caused or exacerbated the problem.

 

[sub3marathonman]

They are "required" but by Nissan, not the settlement. However, the requirement has no teeth in it.

My understanding is that the settlement terms are specifically 8 capacity bars (or less) within the time-frame of 5 years from the "in service" date or 60,000 miles, whichever comes first. No other requirements are mentioned that I can see, except of course that you (your vehicle) have to be a member of the settlement class.

So in my opinion, (but I must mention that I am not an attorney) even if you haven't had any annual battery checks, as "required" by Nissan, but you are a member of the settlement class, you would still qualify for the replacement battery if you meet the specifically mentioned requirements.

And these annual battery checks would be required for those LEAF owners who qualify under the Nissan battery warranty, as I believe it is mentioned in the warranty. (I haven't read the warranty for newer than 2011 LEAFs.)

 

[RegGuheert]

And these annual battery checks would be required for those LEAF owners who qualify under the Nissan battery warranty, as I believe it is mentioned in the warranty. (I haven't read the warranty for newer than 2011 LEAFs.)

I seriously doubt that the requirement to get an annual battery check is a legal reason to deny a warranty claim in many U.S. states. Rather, I believe it is Nissan's responsibility to prove that any non-compliance was caused by the owner through abuse or a lack of proper maintenance if they want to deny a warranty claim.