Dealer said - bad fuel. Need to hear your thoughts...

[MikeM.]

And that's very important: \ if there there truely is no harm in running a single tank through then the gas station could argue the expense the owner incurred was unnecessary and therefore they are not liable for any damages since there were none.

There doesn't have to be vehicle damage for there to be liability if the fuel was mislabeled because the consumer has the right to receive the product they paid for. Under our long-standing system of tort law, a station with mislabeled product is liable for expenses to return the car back into the expected condition, ie. full of gasoline, not less expensive alcohol. And the CX-5 manual does instruct that E85 is not an acceptable fuel.

Most station owners would understand this liability if they made such a mistake and would pay reasonable bills without the need to take them to court. This is especially true in states with strong consumer protection laws because, in cases this clear cut, the court can impose punitive damages in addition to the other parties legal fees for such unreasonable behavior. For the same reason, a consumer who negligently filled their gas tank with fuel that was clearly marked E85 would be foolish to take the station to court because punitive damages and legal fees could be awarded to the station owner.

 

[Buddywh2]

There doesn't have to be vehicle damage for there to be liability if the fuel was mislabeled because the consumer has the right to receive the product they paid for. Under our long-standing system of tort law, a station with mislabeled product is liable for expenses to return the car back into the expected condition, ie. full of gasoline, not less expensive alcohol. And the CX-5 manual does instruct that E85 is not an acceptable fuel...

Makes the prospect of getting some coupons for free fill-ups look better.

I may be mistaken, but small claims would be a hard sell for any kind of case where punitive damages are sought and besides: it's highly speculative concerning any of the facts relating to it's appropriateness here.

 

[MikeM.]

I may be mistaken, but small claims would be a hard sell for any kind of case where punitive damages are sought and besides: it's highly speculative concerning any facts relating the appropriateness of it here.

I don't understand this. If I had a receipt from a gas station showing a regular fill-up earlier in the day, and paperwork from my shop within 24 hours showing 80-90% ethanol in my tank I would submit it to the station owner, along with my a sworn statement as to the facts and reasonable expenses necessary to remedy the issue caused by the mislabeled pump. I would also state that failure to provide reimbursement within 30 days would lead to a lawsuit for uncollected damages in addition to legal fees and punitive damages for failing to take responsibility for the mislabeled product.

A reasonable businessman would simply pay the repair bill. An unreasonable businessman would end up in court with huge legal liability unless he had a viable reason why he didn't believe he was liable.

I would not mess with small claims court. However, in this case we still don't know if the issue was mislabeled product or customer negligence.

 

[Buddywh2]

I don't understand this. If I had a receipt from a gas station showing a regular fill-up earlier in the day, and paperwork from my shop within 24 hours showing 80-90% ethanol in my tank I would submit it to the station owner, along with my a sworn statement as to the facts and reasonable expenses necessary to remedy the issue caused by the mislabeled pump. I would also state that failure to provide reimbursement within 30 days would lead to a lawsuit for uncollected damages in addition to legal fees and punitive damages for failing to take responsibility for the mislabeled product.

A reasonable businessman would simply pay the repair bill. An unreasonable businessman would end up in court with huge legal liability unless he had a viable reason why he didn't believe he was liable.

I would not mess with small claims court. However, in this case we still don't know if the issue was mislabeled product or customer negligence.

Firstly: no judge in his right mind would take a case where there is less than $500 in question, he'll throw it out and you're left with small claims. They're just way too busy. I wouldn't doubt court fees alone are more than. But if you're pressing for punitive damages that may make the question larger.

I believe one would have to show the station's deception was intentional, maybe even did it after they were warned of it. None of those facts are evident here nor even alleged and difficult for me to imagine given what IHeartGroceries offered. Occam's razor suggests the wife made a mistake in filling but it's also plausible it was accidentally loaded into the station's tanks in a manner IHeart describes.

But, now, if what you are imagining is the DISTRIBUTOR doing this intentionally....wow. That's bigger. Now that is an exciting expose for someone to research, maybe get a pulitzer.

As for why you don't get it is because you don't get the premise: that there is no harm in running the tank of E85 through and the owner therefore needlessly paid to have the gas pumped from his tank. You may disagree, but that it is. Curiously, under that premise I would think he has better grounds for action against the mechanic that wrongly advised him to do that instead of first taking the problem back to the station to discuss things. Oh, and of course we all know that happens a lot: getting bad advice from a mechanic to replace things when there's nothing wrong.

IMO, the remedy should be: a tank of E15 gas which he thought he was buying in the first place. The coupon makes that happen.