[djrussell]

I realize that. Problem is my lawyer is telling me, I have no evidence of damage. Yes, I have evidence the local service shop messed up big time. But without proof their mess up caused damage, I would get no where in court.

Instead what would come forth in court is: Local service shop's mechanic (which would be taken as expert) would testify to no signs of damage and transmission working. Followed by Subaru (highly credible expertise) saying they didn't see any signs of transmission damage, and vehicle drove fine for them.

My problem with this is that the engine / transmission are being treated as "black boxes". So long as they're operating okay, everything must be okay inside. But you know that they were run overfilled or without fluid so there's a high potential for internal damage. If there's evidence of damage, it's going to be inside. At very least, the lube shop should be responsible to pay for disassembly and internal inspections of both. And all the labor and parts required to do that might just outweigh the cost of straight removing and replacing.

Hopefully since one of their mechanics made the error in the first place, they'd not be considered expert in this case.

 

[packout]

My problem with this is that the engine / transmission are being treated as "black boxes". So long as they're operating okay, everything must be okay inside. But you know that they were run overfilled or without fluid so there's a high potential for internal damage. If there's evidence of damage, it's going to be inside. At very least, the lube shop should be responsible to pay for disassembly and internal inspections of both. And all the labor and parts required to do that might just outweigh the cost of straight removing and replacing.

Hopefully since one of their mechanics made the error in the first place, they'd not be considered expert in this case.

I agree to explore the inspection requirement. Your attorney is correct but damages are the last part of the process. You would need some enginevengineervexpert to support the inspection need.

 

[hokiefyd]

I'm not a lawyer, but I think it'd be difficult to get a court to compel the shop to pay for disassembly and inspection based on the potential for, or even the presumption of, damage. In the worst case, if that happened and no damage was found, I think the shop could pretty quickly counter-sue to recover the costs associated with that, and then @2020SAL could potentially be liable for those costs. What a perverted turn of events that would be! @2020SAL could certainly pay for disassembly and inspection and, if damage was found, could probably hang the cost for that, plus replacement, on the shop. But that's a financial risk. It's certainly common sense that running a transmission without lubricant, to the point of mechanical lockup, would result in internal damage, but the standard of the law is sometimes different, and I think the burden of proof is on the customer here, not the shop.

I think the financial burden is on the customer to prove guilt, not on the shop to prove no guilt (but again, I'm not a lawyer, so all "I stayed in a Holiday Inn" caveats apply!)

I think waiting for something to happen, unfortunately, is about all one can do at this point. I'm not sure there are other legal options.

 

[djrussell]

I really don't know either, @hokiefyd. What's fair and what's legally required may be completely different.

In the current situation though, @2020SAL is not "whole" in that he's out the cost of replacing his transmission fluid and his service records with Subaru now have a blemish that may void future warranty coverage.

 

[packout]

I really don't know either, @hokiefyd. What's fair and what's legally required may be completely different.

In the current situation though, @2020SAL is not "whole" in that he's out the cost of replacing his transmission fluid and his service records with Subaru now have a blemish that may void future warranty coverage.

Diminished value. I wouldn't buy it knowing what happened. Too much risk.

 

[djrussell]

Diminished value. I wouldn't buy it knowing what happened. Too much risk.

100% agree. I wouldn't touch it when there are other properly serviced options available.

 

[packout]

100% agree. I wouldn't touch it when there are other properly serviced options available.

And that is what the lawsuit starts with. Get a good appraiser who works with diminished value and determine how much is the loss compared to new parts.

 

[Robert.Mauro]

At very least, the lube shop should be responsible to pay for disassembly and internal inspections of both.

Subaru dealerships are not allowed to disassemble the Ascent TR690. They can do a full flush and look for signs of damage in the fluid (eg: metal particles), as well as perform some extensive diagnostics (such as the stall test, and some more detailed monitoring under load).

 

[djrussell]

I'm glad RobertD posted his solution. At very least you could spray paint the head of it red.

Followed up on my own advice while under the car this weekend. No touchy! Also adds 5hp.

 

[latapx]

Sorry if I'm beating a dead horse...but here goes anyways.

The shop screwed up. Check.
The shop then filled with the wrong fluid. Check.
With these 2 items alone, the LEAST the shop can do is to pay to have your fluid filled with the proper fluid in the proper manner by Subaru (which you did out of pocket). They can't claim they filled it and its fine, because there is a documented REQUIRED fluid and REQUIRED fill procedure. Getting them to agree to pay for the proper fluid being installed would already be an admission of guilt which may help in the future if you have an issue. But, under no circumstances sign a release as this may forfeit any rights in the future.

Good luck!