Don't worry about the Warranty

[GaryS]

Originally Posted by michifan

BMW isn't pushing any harder against tuners than they should. The truth is that many people abuse a tune and create havoc on the engine. BMW has every right to deny a repair for a tune related problem.

There are two separate issues. The first is anti-competitive behavior, the second is cheating consumers.

Jim Conforti says BMW is not giving third-party tuners the necessary access to tune the cars. If that's true, it is illegal anti-competitive behavior. It doesn't matter that BMW warranties their own tunes. What matters is that they sell their tunes in America.

Second, TrackRat and others say that BMWNA routinely denies warranty claims just because a third-party tune is present, without proving or even claiming that the tune caused the issue. If that is true, that is, by American law, both anti-competitive behavior and cheating the consumer. If I understand you, you said BMW doesn't deny claims just because a mod is present. Okay, I don't know; I'm only going by the one-sided stories that get posted here. If it never really happens, that's even better.

[michifan]

Originally Posted by GaryS

There are two separate issues. The first is anti-competitive behavior, the second is cheating consumers.

Jim Conforti says BMW is not giving third-party tuners the necessary access to tune the cars. If that's true, it is illegal anti-competitive behavior. It doesn't matter that BMW warranties their own tunes. What matters is that they sell their tunes in America.

Second, TrackRat and others say that BMWNA routinely denies warranty claims just because a third-party tune is present, without proving or even claiming that the tune caused the issue. If that is true, that is, by American law, both anti-competitive behavior and cheating the consumer. If I understand you, you said BMW doesn't deny claims just because a mod is present. Okay, I don't know; I'm only going by the one-sided stories that get posted here. If it never really happens, that's even better.

I don't know Jim or what he is claiming (specifically), and I don't know any law that requires BMW to give any kind of access to tuners. Even if BMW invited Dinan in and gave them carte blanche, they don't have to give everyone the same carte blanche. Most tuners buy their own vehicles (including Dinan) for testing.

Now, if BMW started denying warranty on BMS tunes but in the exact same circumstance didn't deny a warranty claim with Dinan, it would open BMW to broad class action claims against it - primarily by the customers of the tunes, secondarily by the tuners themselves. The MMA is the most consumer friendly, consumer protection act in existence. Trust me, if manufacturers could get it repealed, they would in a heartbeat.

I do know that there are dealers and SA that have a very aggressive stance on mods. As an earlier poster mentioned, sometimes its just not worth the battle. I wouldn't leave a piggyback tune in the car just to avoid the pissing contest. But, if my dealer tries to refuse service because I have an installed OCC or FMIC, I'll find the slimiest contingent fee attorney in the area and let the two of them tear each other to bits.

That being said, as someone that was in the industry and knows how the system works, BMW isn't going to piss off an executive customer with an intake and a FMIC. And even if they 'tag' your car for a tune, they still need to be able to demonstrate that the tune caused it. And while the law is tilted on your side, you have to be willing to get dirty.

I probably handle 5-10 lawsuits a year. If two gets to court, it's a bad year. Eventhough most companies have internal legal departments, they don't handle these kind of cases. We usually just work with local counsel (expensive at that) and do a cost-benefit on the case. When its 50/50, we'll settle. But I never settle a day earlier than I have to. Cannot tell you how many times I told the lawyer to hold off on our offer until the day before court.

[michifan]

Originally Posted by TrackRat

There is nothing anti-competitive about voiding the warranty on a Modded car.

It's very simple really:

If you want the new vehicle limited warranty coverage for defects in material and workmanship then you must comply with the warranty requirements which prohibit Mods that change the vehicle's engineered specifications.

If you want to Mod, you are totally free to do so but you lose the warranty coverage for the area of the vehicle impacted by your Mods. It is what it is.

You are so close to understanding the law, but you keep making it too broad.

Also, we do not have LIMITED WARRANTIES on our cars, we have FULL WARRANTIES. There is a legal difference between the two, and no OEM sells a new vehicle with a Limited Warranty.

To edit your original text to conform with the law.

If you want warranty coverage for defects in material and workmanship then you must comply with the warranty requirements which prohibit warranty coverage for parts that have been modified or damaged by other third party modifications.

If you want to Mod, you are totally free to do so but you lose the warranty coverage for any part of the vehicle damaged by your Mods. It is what it is.

[ceb]

I know many of you like to argue just to prove a point, but I'm afraid that the folks that agree with trackrat are "righter" than the others.

Let me try to explain this in logical layman's term. I'm sure that some will come up with all sorts of nebulous arguments but they are not real world.

1. The oft misquoted MM act has nothing to do with performance parts. It was enacted to keep manufacturers from requiring the use of a specific brand of replacement part in order to keep the warranty intact.

Accordingly, the use of a "substantially similar" replacement is OK and the manufacturer must show that the "substantially similar" caused the failure if they refuse warranty service for a failure.

In practical terms, this means that you can substitute a Osram H7 bulb for the Bosch H7 that the car originally came with.

2. Let's look at performance parts for a moment. By definition, performance parts are not "substantially similar" as they are intended to alter the performance characteristics of a system. Based upon this, performance parts fall outside the scope of the MM act.

In order to refuse warranty service for a failure, the manufacturer (legally) merely needs to show that a part that is not "substantially similar" was used and that this part could have caused the failure. At this point, the burden of proof shifts to the consumer to prove that the part did not cause the failure.

Going back to out lightbulb example, if you have an electrical failure and you've replaced your 55w bulbs with 85w "hyperwhites" or LED's then the dealer is under an obligation to the manufacturer to refuse warranty service on the failure if they believe that the performance bulbs caused the failure.

Simple - right?

Now, let's talk warranty a moment.

3. The term "void the warranty" is often bandied about by both consumers and dealers alike.

Very few things will actually "void the warranty." This was alluded to by other posters but not fully explained. If a car is so badly abused, or modded to the point where virtually every system failure can be traced back to a mod, then the manufacturer can "void the warranty." A flood damaged car or one that was in a severe accident might also be candidates for the manufacturer to void the warranty on the entire car.

Mitsubishi voided the warranty on a bunch of cars that they saw were used at racetracks.

What is commonly referred to as "voiding the warranty" actually refers to a dealer refusing warranty service on a particular service.

Quite simply, if a dealer believes that a modification, chip, performance part, abuse or whatnot caused (or substantially contributed) to a failure, then he has an obligation to the manufacturer to refuse warranty service on that failure.

Accordingly, using our lighting example again, the dealer could refuse warranty service on any electrical failure. This could actually extend to ECUs or the entire electrical system.

Farfetched? Not really. A few years back a guy on VWVortex decided to paint his sidemarker bulbs silver on his brand new Jetta.

The bulb heated up, melted the paint and dripped into the housing. The housing melted and shorted out parts of the wiring loom. Since the Jetta uses a CAN-BUS, the whole thing needed replacement $2500 later the car was on the road again.

4. Why doesn't the dealer give the customer the benefit of the doubt? The manufacturer often asks for parts back to determine the cause of the failure. They are extremely vigilant for failures that often are seen on modded cars.

Fell free to argue until you're blue in the face - but - like it or not, the above is the way it is.

You can always find a lawyer who will argue a different viewpoint, but that doesn't mean it is right.

So, what is the bottom line?

ANY mod may cause warranty woes. Consider ALL the implications of any mod you are contemplating and be mentally and monetarily prepared to pay for the consequences.

Read your owner's manual carefully. It specifically warns against engine (ECU) and suspension mods as examples of mods that will cause problems.

Feel free to mod away, but remember that you might have to pay to play. The other posters who say "just do it" aren't the ones that will have to foot the bill.

[GaryS]

Originally Posted by michifan

Now, if BMW started denying warranty on BMS tunes but in the exact same circumstance didn't deny a warranty claim with Dinan, it would open BMW to broad class action claims against it - primarily by the customers of the tunes, secondarily by the tuners themselves.

Substitute "BMW Performance" for "Dinan" in that sentence. BMW Performance sells aftermarket tunes for BMW cars and is a direct competitor to Dinan and BMS for exactly the same customers in exactly the same market.

If BMW started denying warranty on cars with BMS tunes but in the exact same circumstance didn't deny a warranty claim on cars with BMW Performance tunes, it would open BMW to broad class action claims against it - primarily by the customers of the tunes, secondarily by the tuners themselves.

[ceb]

Originally Posted by GaryS

Substitute "BMW Performance" for "Dinan" in that sentence. BMW Performance sells aftermarket tunes for BMW cars and is a direct competitor to Dinan and BMS for exactly the same customers in exactly the same market.

If BMW started denying warranty on cars with BMS tunes but in the exact same circumstance didn't deny a warranty claim on cars with BMW Performance tunes, it would open BMW to broad class action claims against it - primarily by the customers of the tunes, secondarily by the tuners themselves.

Not at all. BMW can easily argue that their performance parts are designed to work within the design parameters of the stock car while the aftermarket tuners may be outside those parameters.

[michifan]

Originally Posted by ceb

Not at all. BMW can easily argue that their performance parts are designed to work within the design parameters of the stock car while the aftermarket tuners may be outside those parameters.

Step further is that BMW Performance parts are one and the same with BMW Motorwerks. It's kind of a moot point whose paying for the warranty, its the same company.

[ceb]

Originally Posted by michifan

Step further is that BMW Performance parts are one and the same with BMW Motorwerks. It's kind of a moot point whose paying for the warranty, its the same company.

Right - assuming that you are using the BMW Performance part designed for your application and that the part is installed properly.

[michifan]

Originally Posted by ceb

I know many of you like to argue just to prove a point, but I'm afraid that the folks that agree with trackrat are "righter" than the others.

Let me try to explain this in logical layman's term. I'm sure that some will come up with all sorts of nebulous arguments but they are not real world.

1. The oft misquoted MM act has nothing to do with performance parts. It was enacted to keep manufacturers from requiring the use of a specific brand of replacement part in order to keep the warranty intact.

Accordingly, the use of a "substantially similar" replacement is OK and the manufacturer must show that the "substantially similar" caused the failure if they refuse warranty service for a failure.

MMA includes service parts, performance parts, DIY wire and rope...

The

The original MM act is over 30 years old, existing law is as follows:

http://cfr.vlex.com/vid/700-10-section-102-19637874


TITLE 16 - COMMERCIAL PRACTICES

CHAPTER I - FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

SUBCHAPTER G - RULES, REGULATIONS, STATEMENTS AND INTERPRETATIONS UNDER THE MAGNUSON - MOSS WARRANTY ACT

PART 700 - INTERPRETATIONS OF MAGNUSON - MOSS WARRANTY ACT

700.10 - Section 102(c).

(a) Section 102(c) prohibits tying arrangements that condition coverage under a written warranty on the consumer's use of an article or service identified by brand, trade, or corporate name unless that article or service is provided without charge to the consumer.

(b) Under a limited warranty that provides only for replacement of defective parts and no portion of labor charges, section 102(c) prohibits a condition that the consumer use only service (labor) identified by the warrantor to install the replacement parts. A warrantor or his designated representative may not provide parts under the warranty in a manner which impedes or precludes the choice by the consumer of the person or business to perform necessary labor to install such parts.

(c) No warrantor may condition the continued validity of a warranty on the use of only authorized repair service and/or authorized replacement parts for non-warranty service and maintenance. For example, provisions such as, This warranty is void if service is performed by anyone other than an authorized ABC dealer and all replacement parts must be genuine ABC parts, and the like, are prohibited where the service or parts are not covered by the warranty. These provisions violate the Act in two ways. First, they violate the section 102 (c) ban against tying arrangements. Second, such provisions are deceptive under section 110 of the Act, because a warrantor cannot, as a matter of law, avoid liability under a written warranty where a defect is unrelated to the use by a consumer of unauthorized articles or service. This does not preclude a warrantor from expressly excluding liability for defects or damage caused by such unauthorized articles or service; nor does it preclude the warrantor from denying liability where the warrantor can demonstrate that the defect or damage was so caused.

[ceb]

I think most everyone is on the same page here.

If you mod your car - and the dealer believes that the mod caused the failure then the dealer has an obligation to refuse warranty service for that failure.

Don't forget that the dealer is stuck with the bill if BMW asks for the parts back and determines that the failure was caused by the mod.

Some mods may have unintended consequences - often only peripherally related on the surface.

[michifan]

Originally Posted by ceb

I think most everyone is on the same page here.

If you mod your car - and the dealer believes that the mod caused the failure then the dealer has an obligation to refuse warranty service for that failure.

Don't forget that the dealer is stuck with the bill if BMW asks for the parts back and determines that the failure was caused by the mod.

Some mods may have unintended consequences - often only peripherally related on the surface.

EXACTLY.

The misinformation I've been correcting - over and over and over - are:
1) There is only one Full Warranty for your car. There aren't warranties for your engine, transmission, suspension...
2) There is no such thing as 'voiding' a warranty. Manufacturers can deny a specific warranty claim ONLY if the defect is caused by improper use or modification.
3) If you have a modification that could reasonably create problems down the line (tune, catless exhaust...) - be prepared for your car to be 'tagged' and any problems that could conceivably be attached to the mod be blamed.
4) If you have a warranty claim rejected, get in writing why the warranty claim was denied. If you have confidence that a modification you made is not the cause, see a Lemon Law Lawyer who will direct you to an independent mechanic to document the problem before it is fixed.

As long as people realize that the only way that they can have a warranty claim rejected is when the warrantor can substantiate that a modification created the problem, they understand the MMA.

[ceb]

Originally Posted by michifan

EXACTLY.

The misinformation I've been correcting - over and over and over - are:
1) There is only one Full Warranty for your car. There aren't warranties for your engine, transmission, suspension...
2) There is no such thing as 'voiding' a warranty. Manufacturers can deny a specific warranty claim ONLY if the defect is caused by improper use or modification.
3) If you have a modification that could reasonably create problems down the line (tune, catless exhaust...) - be prepared for your car to be 'tagged' and any problems that could conceivably be attached to the mod be blamed.
4) If you have a warranty claim rejected, get in writing why the warranty claim was denied. If you have confidence that a modification you made is not the cause, see a Lemon Law Lawyer who will direct you to an independent mechanic to document the problem before it is fixed.

As long as people realize that the only way that they can have a warranty claim rejected is when the warrantor can substantiate that a modification created the problem, they understand the MMA.

It is also important to note that the burden of proof on the dealer/manufacturer is much less stringent if "performance" parts are used. All the manufacturer needs to demonstrate (as you posted in your recent post) is that the performance part could have caused the failure - a very low standard.

[michifan]

Originally Posted by ceb

It is also important to note that the burden of proof on the dealer/manufacturer is much less stringent if "performance" parts are used. All the manufacturer needs to demonstrate (as you posted in your recent post) is that the performance part could have caused the failure - a very low standard.

That is not true. You are making that up. There is no special standard in the law for 'perforamnce parts'

A part is a part is a part. The burden of proof is always on the warrantor and there is no special treatment for what the part does.

The only question for the court is whether the modification caused the problem. Why or what that part did is completely irrelevant (excluding emissions which is a CAA issue).

[ceb]

Originally Posted by michifan

That is not true. You are making that up. There is no special standard in the law for 'perforamnce parts'

A part is a part is a part. The burden of proof is always on the warrantor and there is no special treatment for what the part does.

The only question for the court is whether the modification caused the problem. Why or what that part did is completely irrelevant (excluding emissions which is a CAA issue).

I guess we'll have to disagree here. The manufacturer has the right to set requirements for replacement parts (just like BMW specifies LL-01 oils) and their burden of proof is lower when a part that does not meet requirements is used.

I guess we'll just continue to have different opinions - but it is really academic as it makes no real-world difference.

[michifan]

Originally Posted by ceb

I guess we'll have to disagree here. The manufacturer has the right to set requirements for replacement parts (just like BMW specifies LL-01 oils) and their burden of proof is lower when a part that does not meet requirements is used.

I guess we'll just continue to have different opinions - but it is really academic as it makes no real-world difference.

Stop making things up and posting on this site like you know what you are talking about. There is no lower or higher burden of proof whether you use a manufacturers part or any other replacement part. You are using legal terms that aren't included in the law. I keep putting the relevant code in front of you and I don't think you either believe it is code or have read it.

(c) No warrantor may condition the continued validity of a warranty on the use of only authorized repair service and/or authorized replacement parts for non-warranty service and maintenance. For example, provisions such as, This warranty is void if service is performed by anyone other than an authorized ABC dealer and all replacement parts must be genuine ABC parts, and the like, are prohibited where the service or parts are not covered by the warranty. These provisions violate the Act in two ways. First, they violate the section 102 (c) ban against tying arrangements. Second, such provisions are deceptive under section 110 of the Act, because a warrantor cannot, as a matter of law, avoid liability under a written warranty where a defect is unrelated to the use by a consumer of unauthorized articles or service. This does not preclude a warrantor from expressly excluding liability for defects or damage caused by such unauthorized articles or service; nor does it preclude the warrantor from denying liability where the warrantor can demonstrate that the defect or damage was so caused.

In plain english, this says that BMW CANNOT condition their warranty on the use of authorized parts or service - but they can preclude liability for defects or damage caused by such unauthorized parts or services. If you use an outside part or service and that part or service leads to a defect, the warrantor has the right to refuse the warranty. PERIOD.

This is the law in a nutshell. Ford, BMW, GM, MB, Audi.... all follow this law without question. Every single rejection of warranty from a dealer goes to the manufacturer for review. If they agree that the unauthorized part caused the problem, they will stand behind the dealer. There is also a formal appeal process with every single manufacturer. Trust me, they don't want to end up in court with a MMA issue unless they are confident that they win.

If you go to Eurospeciality and pick up an oil that is labeled that it meets the BMW OE Spec, but that oil is actually maple syrup and you put it in your crankcase, BMW can deny any claims associated with the syrup and your claim is with Eurospeciality or the company that misbranded the syrup. On the other hand, if you go to Wal Mart and pick up an oil that has nothing to do with BMW, BUT chemically it performs in your car with no problems and your HPFP goes out - BMW must replace your HPFP.

The MMA as it is currently being interpreted by the FTC is real simple and straightforward. Go through any of my posts and PROVE that I've errored in any way. And by proof, go to the FTC or findlaw.com and find a single instance where I am wrong.

The only question with being denied for a specific warranty claim is whether you made an unauthorized modification that created a problem. It doesn't matter what the modification was. However, you can make as many unauthorized modifications as you want (CAA excluded) and as long as those modifications do not lead to a claim that you want the manufacturer to repair on warranty.

But it is unlawful for the manufacturer to 'void' a full warranty until the vehicle is either taken out of service or the time/mileage period lapses. They can deny future claims - but each time they have to base it on specific reasons. In other words, if you had a modification that lead to a problem - then you took out the modification - and so many months later another problem occurred, they still have to prove that the admitted modification from many months ago caused the problem. They cannot say that you had a modification, now every single powertrain claim will be rejected. I know this fact certain.


TR,
If you think I'm a 23 year old blowing smoke, PM me and I'll give you access to my biography on linkedin. You'll see my credentials. I really do know what I'm talking about because I've been on the other side of this issue.

[GaryS]

Originally Posted by ceb

Not at all. BMW can easily argue that their performance parts are designed to work within the design parameters of the stock car while the aftermarket tuners may be outside those parameters.

That is exactly what Bell Telephone argued right before the judge ruled that Bell could not give preferential warranty support to customers who used Bell equipment instead of third-party equipment, and it was exactly what Microsoft argued right before the judge ruled that Microsoft could not give preferential support to customers who used Internet Explorer instead of third-party browsers.

The law against tying warranty support in a way that impedes competition was already in the Clayton Antitrust Act (google "anti-competitive tying") long before the MMA was enacted. Rulings based on it have always been unpopular, because most people just assume that Bell knows best or Microsoft knows best or BMW knows best; so at the times, huge majorities sided with Bell and Microsoft and thought the judges were crazy. But you can look now back and see that we are better off being able to buy third-party phone equipment without reprisal from Bell and better off being able to use Firefox or Chrome without reprisal from Microsoft.

[michifan]

Originally Posted by GaryS

That is exactly what Bell Telephone argued right before the judge ruled that Bell could not give preferential warranty support to customers who used Bell equipment instead of third-party equipment, and it was exactly what Microsoft argued right before the judge ruled that Microsoft could not give preferential support to customers who used Internet Explorer instead of third-party browsers.

The law against tying warranty support in a way that impedes competition was already in the Clayton Antitrust Act (google "anti-competitive tying") long before the MMA was enacted. Rulings based on it have always been unpopular, because most people just assume that Bell knows best or Microsoft knows best or BMW knows best; so at the times, huge majorities sided with Bell and Microsoft and thought the judges were crazy. But you can look now back and see that we are better off being able to buy third-party phone equipment without reprisal from Bell and better off being able to use Firefox or Chrome without reprisal from Microsoft.

Gary,
Cebs argument wouldn't be the one used by BMW. BMW specifically warrants their aftermarket parts separately. If their parts cause a problem, they pick up the warranty cost. It is not unlike Dinan except the same company. In fact, if you insall the BMW part, you are only protected if the part fails mechanically. If you botch the install AND that leads to a problem, they can deny the claim.

[GaryS]

Originally Posted by michifan

BMW specifically warrants their aftermarket parts separately. If their parts cause a problem, they pick up the warranty cost. It is not unlike Dinan except the same company.

No, you could say that about anything. For it not to be tying, they really have to be separate companies. In the Bell case, the judge made it a reality by ordering the company to split into separate companies for phone services and phone equipment. In the Microsoft case, the Clinton DOJ requested the judge to split Microsoft into separate companies for Windows, Office and Internet Explorer; but luckily for Microsoft, the Bush DOJ dropped the case.

[michifan]

Originally Posted by GaryS

No, you could say that about anything. For it not to be tying, they really have to be separate companies. In the Bell case, the judge made it a reality by ordering the company to split into separate companies for phone services and phone equipment. In the Microsoft case, the Clinton DOJ requested the judge to split Microsoft into separate companies for Windows, Office and Internet Explorer; but luckily for Microsoft, the Bush DOJ dropped the case.

Gary,
I just don't see the tying argument working here.

BMW offers performance parts with a fallback warranty - no different than Dinan or any other aftermarket manufacturer that provides a warranty. They do not require that you use BMW performance parts nor is there any evidence of special treatment for using their parts. When you buy BMW performance parts, you'll actually get warranty documents that explain how the warranty works and what are those limitations.

BMW would be guilty of Tying if they said that the only parts you could put on your car would be BMW Performance. Or by saying that if you put anything other than BMW Performance or BMW Approved parts on your car, you will lose your warranty (which Track Rat had stated earlier).

As far as I can tell, BMW isn't doing anything wrong. They have a policy, within the law, of declining to do warranty work on parts that have been modified or damaged by a modification. If the part is made by Dinan, Dinan takes the hit on its warranty. If the part is made by BMW Performance, it is effectively picked up on the BMW Performance warranty. This is routine, perfectly legal behavior that virtually every single OEM does.


Maybe offline, you and I can discuss the wonders of anti-trust, FTC and other government regulations - but I just wanted to eliminate a bunch of inaccurate readings of one of the most consumer-friendly legislation that has passed in the last 40 years. I guarantee that there is no way the MMA would pass in today's political climate.


One more time with feeling.

THE ONLY WAY A DEALER CAN REFUSE TO DO ANY SINGLE WARRANTY REPAIR ON YOUR VEHICLE IS IF THE VEHICLE HAS PASSED THE TIME/MILES LIMIT OR THE REPAIR IS REQUIRED BECAUSE A MODIFICATION OR UNINTENDED USE HAS DIRECTLY COMPROMISED THE PART NEEDING REPAIR.

DEALERS CANNOT PRE-EMPTIVELY VOID WARRANTIES, AND MUST DOCUMENT ON EVERY SINGLE REFUSED WARRANTY THE SPECIFIC MODIFICATION OR UNINTENDED USE THAT CAUSED EACH SPECIFIC PROBLEM.

[My135]

I think michifan is right that BMW can only deny certain warranty repair if the dealer thinks certain mod in your car caused the problem, as simple as that. BMW cannot deny a HPFP failure because I have suspension mod. I think some people here is reading the lines too much.

[ceb]

[QUOTE=michifan;7746600]....
BMW would be guilty of Tying if they said that the only parts you could put on your car would be BMW Performance. Or by saying that if you put anything other than BMW Performance or BMW Approved parts on your car, you will lose your warranty (which Track Rat had stated earlier)...[QUOTE]

Actually, that is exactly what says in the warranty document that comes with your car. Page 33 of the manual that comes with the 335's

[michifan]

Originally Posted by TrackRat

This has already been discussed numerous times and BMW doesn't attempt to deny warranty for engine issues due to a suspension Mod. The Mod only voids the warranty on the specific areas of the vehicle it affects.

Maybe we are using different language, but there is no such thing as voiding an area of the vehicle. Whatever the warranty repair that you are bringing in the car for, if the warrantor can demonstrate that that specific repair was required because of the modification they can deny the claim.

But they cannot preemptively deny a warranty claim nor can they be more broad in their denial than they have evidence.