the non-warranty-like nature of the now-included repairs. In 2025, just a few months later, the dealer proceeded with submitting new requests for both parts and labor, following the same policies that the manufacturer had followed from 2020-2023 — excluding categories consistent with maintenance and/or non-warranty like circumstances, and disregarding the manufacturer’s 2024 stance that these categories should now be included. Surprisingly, the manufacturer reverted to the pre-2024 standards, approving both parts and labor submissions without any adjustments or reference to the prior year’s disagreements. When manufacturers inconsistently apply policies for repair qualification, without rationale or notice, to determine retail warranty rates, dealers are left with uncertainty and doubt about manufacturer expectations and intentions regarding reimbursement at true retail. Conclusion Across all cases, one theme persists: inconsistent application of evaluation criteria by manufacturers. Dealers have demonstrated that identical methodologies, repair categories and submission frameworks have been treated differently depending on timing, store or request type. This body of evidence illustrates how some manufacturers change their interpretation of statutory language, whether in designating “warranty-like” qualifications, adhering to state statute requirements, or determining inclusion and exclusion of specific repair categories based on internal criteria. This is not an indictment of all manufacturers; in all fairness, several of them properly adhere to statutory requirements and consistently apply their internal policies. For fairness and credibility to prevail in manufacturer-dealer relationships, evaluation criteria should be applied uniformly, transparently and consistently across all rate requests — regardless of year, dealer or submission type. Only through consistency can the process maintain legitimacy and support mutual trust between dealers and manufacturers. Joe Jankowski is the Managing Member of the Hunt Valley, Maryland-based Armatus Dealer Uplift, a firm specializing in retail warranty reimbursement submissions. Armatus has completed over 22,000 successful submissions nationwide. Joe has been personally involved in consulting on 25 retail warranty statutes and is widely recognized as a subject-matter expert in this highly technical arena. Previously, Joe spent more than 20 years as CFO, COO and CEO of a large automotive group in Maryland. 13 California New Car Dealer Quarterly
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTg3NDExNQ==