Honda Hybrid lady loses on appeal

The judge owns an '83 911. Not sure that matters, but found it interesting.

Honda Motor Co (7267.T) has won the reversal of a $9,867 small-claims judgment awarded to an owner who claimed the Japanese automaker fraudulently overstated the fuel economy of her Civic hybrid car.

First appeal. You can bet your britches the lady will appeal to the next highest court.

In reply to Javelin:

Apparently she intends to make a career our of these kinds of lawsuits, so I suspect you are right.

Otto is right, this is not her first go-round.

She is just one of the many lawsuit-happy shiny happy people in this country.

Javelin wrote: *First* appeal. You can bet your britches the lady will appeal to the next highest court.

There is no second appeal since she went through small claims court. The buck stops there.

I like the fact the judge said that fuel economy estimates are not promises/guarantees, just estimates. Which most people understand the concept, except for the shiny happy ones.

81cpcamaro wrote: I like the fact the judge said that fuel economy estimates are not promises/guarantees, just estimates. Which most people understand the concept, except for the shiny happy ones.

But if you were handed a 5k bill after a 3k "estimate", how would you react? At what point does "reasonable assumption" stop and reality begin? Seems like I can now quote whatever I want for MPG and can tell you as a consumer, FU.

Otto Maddox wrote: In reply to Javelin: Apparently she intends to make a career our of these kinds of lawsuits, so I suspect you are right.

Uh, she's a lawyer man. What the heck else is she going to do, pick corn?

Ranger50 wrote:

81cpcamaro wrote: I like the fact the judge said that fuel economy estimates are not promises/guarantees, just estimates. Which most people understand the concept, except for the shiny happy ones.

But if you were handed a 5k bill after a 3k "estimate", how would you react? At what point does "reasonable assumption" stop and reality begin? Seems like I can now quote whatever I want for MPG and can tell you as a consumer, FU.

It depends on what the estimate said when I got it. Was it a guaranteed maximum price? Did it say there might be additional services based on conditions? The EPA fuel economy figures clearly state that they are dependent on many conditions and observed fuel economy is likely to be different. Hell, the words your mileage may vary (YMMV) have even entered the lexicon in general use, for Pete's sake. This is pure shiny happy personism on her part.

Ranger50 wrote:

81cpcamaro wrote: I like the fact the judge said that fuel economy estimates are not promises/guarantees, just estimates. Which most people understand the concept, except for the shiny happy ones.

But if you were handed a 5k bill after a 3k "estimate", how would you react? At what point does "reasonable assumption" stop and reality begin? Seems like I can now quote whatever I want for MPG and can tell you as a consumer, FU.

No, but if you got a written estimate (that followed a government standard estimating procedure-which has spawned an entire "your mileage may vary" catchphrase), from a place that advertised itself as "Cheapest in town!", and it turns out that yours wasn't quite as cheap as everyone else's, you can't sue for 25% damages.

Apparently this was based on a class action suit that Honda lost. She just felt that one or two hundred dollars wasn't enough.

Honda settled the original class action suit without admitting liability.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-16/honda-hybrid-gas-mileage-settlement-wins-tentative-approval-1-.html

She is doing her best to force Honda to admit they purposely overstated the mileage. That would open a big ol' door for her. Honda ain't gonna do it because, as mentioned earlier, YMMV is a normal thing. There are so many variables... not the least of which is the EPA rules which cover the tests etc used to determine mileage changed in 2008: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/ratings2008.shtml Or after her car was built.

I have dealt with many complaints about gas mileage. It's always funny to see two different people with virtually identical cars; one will complain the mileage sucks, then the other will say theirs gets better than the estimates. So where is the real variable? It's no different than two different race drivers in the same car during an enduro, one will be easier on tires etc than the other unless there is some super uncanny matching of driving styles and abilities.

How much vary is okay though? I think that was the crux of her whole complaint was that Honda's were varying the most, and not in the good way.

If I offered to pay an estimated $15/hour and then only paid you $13, would you be okay with that? $11? $9? Where do you draw the line and say "this isn't right"?

In reply to Duke:

So, what if I program the PCM/ECU/ECM, to recognize the EPA drive cycle to promote max MPG? Since I seem to recall that the EPA test has to be a "production" model.

This is why I asked in my original reply, where is the point of distinction of reality vs reasonable difference in those numbers? Is it 10%? 20%? 50% off of the EPA stated MPG?

EPA numbers make no claim to be real world. Can she prove she drove to exactly the EPA profile and got significantly worse mileage?

Hint: SHE CAN'T prove that unless her morning commute includes a few hundred laps around a test track.

davidjs wrote: No, but if you got a written estimate (that followed a government standard estimating procedure-which has spawned an entire "your mileage may vary" catchphrase), from a place that advertised itself as "Cheapest in town!", and it turns out that yours wasn't quite as cheap as everyone else's, you can't sue for 25% damages.

With a sleazy enough lawyer, I bet I can make a "damages" claim for the difference.

Duke wrote: EPA numbers make no claim to be real world. Can she prove she drove to exactly the EPA profile and got significantly worse mileage? Hint: SHE CAN'T prove that unless her morning commute includes a few hundred laps around a test track.

Does she have to???

She is the one making the assertion that Honda's claims are a lie. So unless the legal model has suddenly switched to "guilty until proven innocent", YES, she needs to prove her accustaion.

The LeMons Civic we drive is a 1986 Si.

One page which purports to have real world fuel mileage data says 27.8 MPG average for that car. http://www.fuelly.com/car/honda/civic%20si The EPA does not give specifics for the Si model, but most of their numbers are pretty close to that first page. http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymodel/1986_Honda_Civic.shtml So I guess it would be reasonably safe to say that car should return somewhere between 22-27 MPG in real world driving.

At CMP LeMons, we were doing roughly 2 hour stints which were governed mostly by fuel starvation. It starts to starve at ~3/8 tank on the gauge. 2 hours, the average lap time was somewhere around 2:12 or so, we will use that as an average. That meant we were going somewhere around 45 to 55 miles before having to refuel and it took an average of about 6.5 gallons each time. Average that to 50. 50 divided by 6.5 equals...

About 7.69 MPG. That is a real world number for a 1.5 liter fuel injected engine in a stripped car with (admittedly) a big ol' windblock on the roof and it spent most of its time around 6k to 7k RPM.

I point this out not to be a wiseass (now there is something new! ) but to show that oh yes there can be massive differences in fuel mileage from the 'ratings' due to operator input.

Duke wrote: She is the one making the assertion that Honda's claims are a lie. So unless the legal model has suddenly switched to "guilty until proven innocent", **YES**, she needs to prove her accustaion.

But there is already a logged legal agreement from Honda to various owners that states while "we" don't have a MPG problem, there might be a problem we don't want to fix or acknowledge, and oh, here is some cash to legally shut you up about it. So, how is Honda not already "guilty"? This is just like pleading the 5th. While it protects you from not causing you harm legally from prosecution, the absence of your own words can and will bite you in the ass if you don't speak up proving or disproving your innocence.

Actually, it comes back to her contention that Honda PURPOSELY and FRAUDULENTLY overstated the mileage to mislead people.

There's a PDF on her site which points out something interesting: in Cali, small claims court does not allow attorneys EXCEPT ON APPEAL. http://www.dontsettlewithhonda.org/

I'm gonna say this is her long term plan: start with SCC, Honda appeals and has it overturned, now she can appeal the appeal and she bring in all sorts of attorneys and stuff legally now. Ad nauseam.

Honda probably settled the original case as they did because to fight it would have led to a protracted court battle. There are some news stories which put the cost to Honda at $170 million to settle, but to take it all the way could have cost in the $1 to $2 BILLION range. and as always in court, there is no way to predict the outcome.

It's not much different from McDonald's settling hot coffee cases out of court for years till they finally got tired of being shaken down and decided to fight back. That turned into a PR disaster for McD's regardless of whether they were right or wrong and I am sure Honda's attorneys were very aware of that. They have to also be keenly aware of Toyota's recent problems and going back even further Audi's.

So they decided to settle without admitting guilt. In short, a payoff. That happens; my dad was sued out of the blue by some woman who claimed he ran over her with his Jag. It never happened!

He had to hire an attorney, the attorney's recommendation? Settle without admitting wrongdoing unless he wanted to get tied up in court for years. IIRC it cost him around $2500 for fees etc and that was cheap if you think about it. BTW, that is one reason he absolutely refused to ever get another vanity plate. That incident is one reason I don't have one either, along with the fact that it's nice to be able to go 'stealth'.

Curmudgeon wrote: Actually, it comes back to her contention that Honda PURPOSELY and FRAUDULENTLY overstated the mileage to mislead people.

That is why I asked the "what if" of picking up on the EPA drive cycle to inflate the numbers....

More to the point (at least IMHO) is how those numbers are arrived at.

From the EPA web site: http://www.epa.gov/fueleconomy/data.htm

The test data used to determine the fuel economy estimates posted on the fuel economy labels and to calculate a manufacturer's corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) is derived from vehicle testing done at EPA's National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory in Ann Arbor, Michigan, and by vehicle manufacturers who submit their own test data to EPA.

So it seems to be a hybrid sort of system. The EPA does some testing and the mfgs do some then they supply that data to the EPA. About that: since CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) needs to be over a certain level which Congress keeps changing, it's in the mfgs best interest to get the numbers as high as possible. Otherwise they get fined. I would venture to say that if a mfg purposely inflated the numbers and got caught there would be a really big stanky, the PR by itself would probably kill at least 20% of sales for a while. So it would not be in Honda's best interests to inflate the numbers in the first place.

I'm afraid this lady has probably bitten off more than she can chew. If I were in her shoes and I was 100% convinced I was right: I'd get the EPA to run HER CAR (not a 'similar' car) through the EPA cycle that was used at the time it was sold and see just what comes of it. That data should tell just what mileage HER CAR is getting, if it's way way off then maybe others could be tested the same way. As it is, she has only anecdotal 'evidence' (i.e. 'hearsay'), no 'hard' numbers from an impartial source.

If she refuses to do that, then I'd say she probably does not have a leg to stand on.

Curmudgeon wrote: It's not much different from McDonald's settling hot coffee cases out of court for years till they finally got tired of being shaken down and decided to fight back. That turned into a PR disaster for McD's regardless of whether they were right or wrong and I am sure Honda's attorneys were very aware of that.

Though as point of fact, MD was paying victims off for overly hot coffee. In this case, she refused their payout. She also had the proverbial smoking gun, internal MD documents showing they knew it was very hot, knew it burned people, and deliberately kept it that way because they made more money paying off victims than correcting the problem. That's actually what turned into a disaster for them.

In the Honda case, wasn't there something about some sort of silly guarantee of mpg in her case? I didn't go searching, but I think there was more than just the normal EPA mpg sticker. I think Honda took the claim further, and that's what largely caused them problems.

In reply to Curmudgeon:

Honda offered to test her car. She refused unless she could videotape, monitor the process, etc. Maybe she was trying to protect herself. Maybe she was trying to make it an untenable situation for Honda.