Nissan CVT Lawsuit Settlement Reached

Nissan class action lawsuit alleges the transmissions jerk, shake, shudder and fail.

Nissan CVT Lawsuit Settlement Reached

Posted in News

— A Nissan CVT lawsuit settlement has been reached between the automaker and vehicle owners who allege the continuously variable transmissions are defective.

The Nissan CVT class action lawsuit was consolidated from five lawsuits: Stringer v. Nissan, Newton v. Nissan, Landa v. Nissan, Lane v. Nissan, and Eliason v. Nissan.

As part of the settlement agreement, Nissan denies all claims related to the transmissions and denies all allegations of wrongdoing, but the automaker decided to settle to avoid the burden and expense of prolonged litigation.

The Nissan class action settlement includes 2014-2018 Nissan Rogue, 2015-2018 Nissan Pathfinder and 2015-2018 Infiniti QX60 vehicles equipped with CVTs.

According to the Nissan class action lawsuit, a CVT uses a segmented steel belt between pulleys that can be adjusted to change the reduction ratio in the transmission.

The plaintiffs who sued claim Nissan knew years ago about the transmission problems because the automaker has issued multiple technical service bulletins (TSBs) to dealerships.

Those bulletins refer to CVTs that shake, shudder, vibrate, cause the vehicles to hesitate and suffer a lack of power, and in some cases dealers were told to replace the transmission assemblies.

Nissan owners claim transmission repairs can cost thousands of dollars, and dealers allegedly may refuse to make repairs even when the vehicles are covered by warranties.

Nissan CVT Lawsuit Settlement

Although Nissan and the plaintiffs agreed to settle the class action lawsuit, a federal judge must still sign off on the terms. However, the proposed CVT lawsuit settlement includes the following.

Nissan CVT Warranty Extension

The proposed settlement has Nissan extending the terms of the new vehicle limited warranty for the transmission assembly (including the valve body and torque converter) and transmission control unit.

The warranty will be extended by 24 months or 24,000 miles, whichever occurs first, and the warranty extension will be subject to the same terms as the original warranty.

Nissan CVT Reimbursement

Nissan will reimburse for parts and labor paid by a customer for qualifying repairs involving the replacement or repair to the transmission assembly or control unit if the work was done after the expiration of the powertrain coverage under the original warranty but within the mileage and time limits of the warranty extension.

If the replacement or repair was performed by a Nissan dealer, the full amount paid will be reimbursed. If the repair or replacement was performed by a non-Nissan dealer, Nissan will reimburse up to $5,000.

However, in both cases the CVT replacement or repair must have occurred on or within the mileage and time limits of the Nissan warranty extension.

Nissan Vouchers

The Nissan CVT lawsuit settlement also may provide a voucher toward the purchase or lease of a new vehicle under these conditions.

Current and former owners of 2014-2018 Nissan Rogue, 2015-2018 Nissan Pathfinder and 2015-2018 Infiniti QX60 vehicles that had two or more replacements or repairs to the transmission assembly (including the valve body and torque converter) or control unit are eligible for a voucher in the amount of $1,000 for either a purchase or lease of a new Nissan or Infiniti vehicle.

However, prior software updates and/or reprogramming do not count as a prior repair. And the Nissan voucher must be used within nine months of the effective date of the CVT lawsuit settlement.

According to the settlement, a customer must choose to receive the voucher or reimbursement, but not both.

Customers must provide any requested documentation to prove they paid for Nissan CVT repairs or replacements.

The 10 plaintiffs who filed the CVT lawsuits are expected to receive $5,000 each, and the attorneys who represent those plaintiffs are expected to receive more than $6.2 million.

The plaintiffs are represented by Greenstone Law APC, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, and Bransetter, Stranch & Jennings PLLC.