INTRODUCTION Over the past several years, discrepancies have emerged in how manufacturers evaluate and approve dealers’ warranty parts and labor rate adjustment requests. Across multiple stores and years, dealers have observed inconsistent application of rules and policies, shifting and inconsistent interpretations of “warranty-like” qualifications, and contradictory inclusion and exclusion decisions. These inconsistencies — found in submissions for a given store year-over-year, in parts and labor submissions for the same store(s), and between similarly situated dealers — constitute what can only be described as disparate treatment. This article presents multiple documented examples illustrating how identical or near-identical repair orders and methodologies have been treated differently by the same manufacturer under changing or variable internal guidelines. Each case study highlights the lack of evaluation consistency, transparent standards and uniform enforcement of manufacturer policies across all dealer submissions. DISPARATE TREATMENT by Manufacturers in Warranty Parts & Labor Rate Increase Evaluations A Multi-Case Review BY JOE JANKOWSKI MANAGING MEMBER, ARMATUS DEALER UPLIFT CASE STUDY 1: SAME STORE PARTS AND LABOR SUBMISSIONS WITH DIFFERENT RULES A dealer submitted requests for warranty parts and labor rate increases during mid-2025. The requests were submitted to their manufacturer in quick succession — both within a one-month period. After reviewing the labor request (which was submitted for review first), the manufacturer approved the dealer for a slightly reduced warranty labor rate, having made several adjustments inconsistent with rules and policies upheld in years prior. Just two days later, the dealer filed a parts request using nearly the same set of repair orders; 89 out of 90 days used in each request overlapped, with a variance of only a single day. Each submission was prepared under identical rules, with parts having been adjusted based on the THE GENERATOR 18
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTg3NDExNQ==