Many people are familiar with the concept of a car being a “lemon.”  The phrase is commonly used to describe a vehicle that gives the owner difficulty from the very beginning.  Michigan has a “Lemon Law” that affords buyers of defective vehicles rights.  However, the Lemon Law does not apply every time someone buys a car that has some problems.  The application of the Lemon Law is much narrower than that.

In general, Michigan’s Lemon Law applies to cases where there is a recurring problem of the same nature that has not been corrected after a reasonable number of repair attempts, and where the problem impairs the use or value of the vehicle.  The Lemon Law only applies to leases and purchases of new vehicles – the law does not apply to used cars. And the law only applies to vehicles for use by consumers, not those purchased for business use.  The consumer must show that the vehicle was out of service for repairs for thirty or more days during the term of the manufacturer’s warranty or during the plaintiff’s first year of ownership, or that the vehicle was taken in for repairs for the same problem at least four times. 

A consumer may not recover under the lemon law merely by showing that the new vehicle in question was out of service for repairs for thirty or more days during the term of the manufacturer’s warranty or plaintiff’s first year of ownership. Rather, a consumer is entitled to relief under the Lemon Law only when the consumer shows each of the following: (1) the defect or condition was reported to the manufacturer, (2) the defect or condition continued to exist after it was reported to the manufacturer, and (3) the vehicle has been subjected to a reasonable number of repairs as provided under the Lemon Law.

Whether the vehicle has been subjected to a reasonable number of repairs may be shown in one of two ways. Pursuant to the “four repairs” theory, a consumer is entitled to a presumption that the vehicle has been subjected to a reasonable number of repairs when the consumer demonstrates (1) that the same defect or condition has been subject to repair four or more times by the manufacturer or new motor vehicle dealer within two years of the first repair attempt, and (2) the defect or condition continues to exist. 

Pursuant to subsection the “thirty days out of service” theory, a consumer is entitled to a presumption that the vehicle has been subjected to a reasonable number of repairs when the consumer demonstrates that (1) the vehicle has been out of service for thirty or more days during the shorter of the manufacturer’s warranty or the first year of ownership, (2) the consumer reported the defect or condition to the manufacturer after the vehicle was out of service for at least twenty-five days, (3) the vehicle was delivered to a manufacturer-designated, reasonably accessible repair facility to repair the defect or condition and the manufacturer had five business days to conduct the repair, and (4) the defect or condition continues to exist.  

— Kassem Dakhlallah is a senior partner with At Law Group, PLLC.  His practice focuses on complex litigation, including class actions, representative actions, commercial litigation, civil forfeiture and personal injury. He can be reached at (313) 406-7606 and kd@atlawgroup.com.