Is rail dust included in lemon law?
Rail dust originally referred to a phenomenon whereby cars would be transported from the manufacturers to the dealerships using railroad. When the rail car wheels pass over the rails, fillings came out as a result of friction between the rail and the wheels. These filings would be carried by wind and some of it landed on the cars.
The filings would not always be immediately apparent, but with time, they manifested themselves as orange specks in the car paint works. Nowadays however, the specks are mostly as a result of filings from snow blade plough or from the brake filings that lie on roads. Now these filings can be unsightly especially on light-colored vehicles, and may be hard to see with a naked eye. So suppose one purchase a car but after a while one notices yellow marks on the car paint works that are as a result of rail dust. Would such a person be entitled to any remedy under the lemon law?
Well, the answer depends on many things as things stand now. First it has to be said that different states have different laws that govern lemon law cases. But they provide a framework which is largely similar as they follow federal legislation on the issue. For one, if one intends to file a lemon law complaint, the warranty by the manufacturer must still be in effect. If the manufacturer’s warranty does not cover rail dust expressly, then the person who holds such warranty would not be covered. A case in point would be where a warranty covers risks such as industrial fallout, sand, salt, hail, and stone but makes no mention of rail dust.
A complaint in such a case would not suffice. Secondly, you must have strong evidence suggesting that the markings have been caused by rail dust, which means that the vehicle failed to comply with the terms of the warranty if the risk of rail dust was covered in the warranty, as has been explained before. Many dealerships usually refuse to pay for rail dust removal on the basis that the markings are environmentally caused. So, the biggest challenge would be to provide sufficient proof that the markings were as a result of dust caused by railway filings as the vehicle was being transported from the manufacturer.
Another thing the car owner is required to do before he is allowed to avail to himself the remedies available for lemon law cases would be to show that he has taken reasonable steps to remedy the breach of warranty. A prolonged delay in visiting the dealership to try and sort out the problem will normally not be helpful to the claimant’s case.
A record of the number of visits the would-be claimant paid to the dealership and/or manufacturer needs to be kept to prove this element of taking reasonable remedial measures.
Lastly, the claimant needs to show that, even after the remedial measures were taken, for example the dealership tried to remove the rail dust markings, the spots were still present, or that they recurred after a brief spell. So, in conclusion, whether the rail dust is covered by lemon law is largely dependent on the terms of the warranty as well as the conduct of the claimant after the discovery of those rail dust markings.