I thought it would be beneficial to add some of the latest car care alerts and news regarding the car care industry that I have found on the net from various sources. Click on the links to read the latest posts, articles and research in the car wash and auto detailing industry
Car Wash Damage Reports
Pontiac mirror damage
Damage to Dodge Ram PU's and Dodge Durango's
Prep or No Prep at the Express Exterior
GMC Envoy Bumper Damage
Volvo gas cap cover damage
Mercedes Gas Cap Covers
GM mirror coming apart
Ford Explorer hatch door trim falling off
Chrysler 300, new model, Roof problem
Ford Focus Mirror Damage
Chrysler-made mini van tailight damage
Jaguar Damage
More commercial car wash damage reports
In 2002, the ICA issued damage reports on several vehicle models by Volvo, Mercedes-Benz and Jeep.
Volvo. The Volvo sunroof is probably the damage issue that caused the biggest stir in the industry this year. Sunroofs on the new models have been shattering in the blow-off area of carwashes. This issue has been of particular concern to car-wash operators and the ICA because it involves safety.
Volvo is currently investigating the situation. In the meantime, the company has agreed to cover all sunroof failures under its new-car warranty. If a carwash operator experiences Volvo sunroof failure at his carwash, he should have the vehicle owner report the incident to his local Volvo retailer immediately.
As a precautionary measure, the ICA suggests operators have Volvo owners close the interior sunscreen before entering the carwash.
Mercedes Benz. Bumpers on the Mercedes ML 320 and ML430 SUVs are reportedly being damaged by carwash side wraps when plastic retainers at the vehicles' rear wheel openings are broken or missing. The company says there have not been enough instances to substantiate a change. Operators are therefore instructed to contact the company to report incidents of bumper damage.
Jeep. This is an example of a quality-control issue. The radio antenna mast on some Jeep Liberty vehicles will break just above the threaded section if not properly installed. DaimlerChrysler responded to the situation by issuing a technical service bulletin informing dealers of proper antenna tightening.
Cozzo says the ICA will typically contact the manufacturer after reports of two or three incidents of damage, but this is often not enough to warrant action. Manufacturers are more likely to start paying attention once 15 to 20 incidents have been identified. Ward was able to present Volvo with 44 incidents of damage, which were more than enough to get their interest. He adds that the company was quick to take action once the seriousness of the situation was realized.
"The Volvo sunroof was a great example of a working partnership to find a resolution that made both parties satisfied," Thorsby says.
Commercial car wash and retail wax lawsuit
Parties in lawsuit attacking the use of the word 'wax' agree to settlement.
by: James Gormley, News
The parties involved in a class-action lawsuit that challenged the use of the word “wax” on products made by three major car wash chemical manufacturers have reached a tentative settlement agreement.
A seven-count class-action lawsuit, known as Garner vs. Healy, accused carwash chemical manufacturers Turtle Wax, Inc., Blue Coral/Slick 50, Inc., and Simoniz USA, Inc., of selling car wash customers products that were “falsely marketed” as wax.
Plaintiffs John A. Garner of Racine, WI, and Steven G. Grant of Chicago represented all consumers who purchased Turtle Wax, Blue Coral, or Simoniz products at carwashes between 1993 and 1997. The two men, who are represented by the Chicago-based law firm Edelman, Combs, and Latturner, claim they have purchased Turtle Wax, Blue Coral and Simoniz products at automatic carwashes since the 1970s.
As part of the settlement, the two original plaintiffs will each receive $2,000 and their attorneys will get a total of $220,000 if the court approves the terms. Any member of the public who can prove they were part of this class — in other words, who can verify that they purchased these products at a carwash between 1993 and 1997 — is entitled to a rebate of $1.34.
More importantly, within six months from when the settlement is finalized, the three manufacturers must include a statement on their product packaging if the products do not actually contain carnauba wax.
Product claims - One of the major questions in the lawsuit, which was filed in the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, was whether Turtle Wax, Blue Coral and Simoniz advertised any of their commercial carwash products as wax, when they, in fact, contained no natural “wax,” such as carnauba or bees wax.
“The products were falsely described as sealer waxes, foam waxes, polish waxes, foam polishes, and protectants,” according to the complaint. “They have the same basic ingredients, none of which is a ‘wax.’"
The complaint also said that Turtle Wax, Blue Coral, and Simoniz themselves have created a perception among consumers that car-care products claiming to be waxes contain some form of natural wax. The complaint says all three companies are “leading” manufacturers of car-care products that contain natural waxes, which are used by detailers and consumers.
“As a result of the widespread marketing of real wax automotive products by defendants and others, the terms ‘wax,’ ‘polish,’ and ‘protectant,’…came to signify products which contain wax and which function as polishes and protectants,” according to the complaint.
In their answers, all three companies deny creating the discrepancy. Some of the other specific charges against the carwash chemical manufacturers are:
• All three companies violated their states’ consumer fraud laws by advertising ineffective products as waxes, polishes, sealants or protectants.
• All three companies committed a breach of express warranty by advertising their products as having polishing and protecting characteristics that they do not have.
Negative publicity - The case of Garner vs. Healy is not the first time chemical manufacturers have been taken to court to defend their products as waxes. In July of 1999, Hot Wax, Inc., Racine, WI, won a federal lawsuit it filed against S/S Car Care Inc., North Canton, OH, manufacturer of Royal Sheen products. Hot Wax attorneys claimed that S/S advertised non-wax products as wax, and damaged Hot Wax’s ability to sell products containing actual carnauba wax.
But Hot Wax’s victory was short lived. On appeal, the jury’s original award of $300,000 was slashed to $52,000, as a judge ruled the company had not shown that it suffered damages. Another suit, filed by Hot Wax against Turtle Wax, was dismissed because it was filed too late. Hot Wax also lost a suit against Stone Soap Co. Inc., Sylvan Lake, MI.
But Garner vs. Healy was by far the most publicized ‘wax’ case and the carwash industry — operators, suppliers and manufacturers included — watched very closely because of the potential for widespread negative publicity. As it was, a number of local television news stations, most notably in the Philadelphia and Los Angeles markets, picked up on the story and have run “consumer awareness” or “consumer alert” segments on their news programs questioning the benefit of carwash wax. The Western Carwash Association (WCA) even felt compelled to issue a statement in response to recent inquiries by local news organizations into the ongoing carwash wax controversy. But for the most part, the car washing industry emerged from the lawsuit relatively unscathed. The manufacturers say they are looking forward to a conclusion. “We’re happy that the case is moving forward toward a settlement,” said Phil Zaidek, vice president and general counsel for Turtle Wax. “We’re hopeful that the court will approve this agreement.”
