Chevrolet Lemon Law Lawyers

Chevrolet vehicles with defective OnStar systems present unique lemon law challenges because these integrated telematics affect multiple vehicle functions beyond just communication. OnStar defects can impact emergency response capabilities, diagnostic systems, navigation, and even some vehicle security features. In Chevrolet models like the Silverado, Equinox, and Malibu, OnStar failures are sometimes connected to broader electrical system issues that GM service centers struggle to properly diagnose. For successful lemon law claims, it’s important to document exactly how OnStar defects substantially impair your vehicle’s safety (emergency response), use (navigation/connectivity), or value (premium feature failure). GM typically defends by offering software updates rather than component replacements.

Chevrolet’s internal buyback policy (their ‘Customer Enthusiasm’ program) creates parallel but different remedies from state lemon laws, which can either benefit or disadvantage consumers depending on their situation. Unlike state lemon laws that typically require a specific number of repair attempts, GM’s internal policy uses a proprietary formula weighing factors like repair time, safety concerns, and customer loyalty. For Silverado, Equinox, or Malibu owners, this creates potential for early resolution without litigation but often at less favorable terms than state lemon laws provide. Chevrolet frequently offers these ‘goodwill’ buybacks with significant usage deductions that exceed what state laws permit. To maximize your recovery, document all dealer statements acknowledging defects and request written repair orders specifying the exact nature of each problem rather than vague descriptions that Chevrolet later uses to minimize severity.

Chevrolet’s Bolt EV battery defects create unique lemon law considerations because they’ve resulted in usage restrictions (charging limitations, parking advisories) that substantially impair vehicle use even without complete failure. These limitations, implemented through multiple software updates affecting range and charging capabilities, can qualify as substantial impairment under lemon law despite Chevrolet’s position that they represent safety precautions rather than defects. Chevrolet typically defends by arguing that battery replacements under recall programs constitute appropriate remedies outside lemon law, but courts in several states have found that extended repair timelines combined with usage restrictions qualify under both ‘repair attempt’ and ‘days out of service’ provisions. To strengthen your claim, document all communications regarding charging restrictions, calculate range reductions resulting from software limitations, and maintain records of accommodations required due to parking restrictions. Chevrolet’s own communications acknowledging fire risks provide compelling evidence that the vehicle’s value remains substantially impaired even after software mitigation measures.

Chevrolet vehicles equipped with MyLink or infotainment systems, particularly in Silverado, Equinox, and Malibu models, have experienced specific defect patterns that strengthen lemon law claims. These vehicles may exhibit symptoms including screen freezing, system crashes requiring vehicle restart, Bluetooth connectivity failures, and backup camera delays or outages. Chevrolet typically defends by performing software updates rather than hardware replacements, often characterizing each update as addressing different issues despite identical symptoms recurring. To build a strong case, document all system failures with specific descriptions, screenshots when possible, and particularly note any safety implications when driving-critical features like backup cameras experience outages. Chevrolet’s technical service bulletins regarding infotainment system diagnostics provide evidence of known issues despite carefully worded language. Courts in several states have found that safety-integrated functions substantially impair vehicle safety when unreliable, qualifying for lemon law protection. Additionally, when premium packages include these features as significant cost additions, their failure meets the ‘substantial impairment of value’ standard regardless of the manufacturer’s position that they represent supplemental rather than essential functions.

Chevrolet Traverse SUVs have experienced specific engine mount defect patterns that strengthen lemon law claims. These vehicles may exhibit symptoms including excessive vibration during idle or specific RPM ranges, unusual noises during acceleration or deceleration, transmission engagement harshness, and in some cases, visible engine movement beyond normal parameters. Chevrolet typically defends by replacing individual mounts rather than addressing all related components simultaneously, creating a pattern of migrating symptoms as forces redistribute to the next weakest point in the mounting system. To build a strong case, document all vibration and noise symptoms with video evidence when possible, noting specific driving conditions that trigger or worsen the issues. Chevrolet’s technical service bulletins regarding mount design updates and torque specifications provide evidence of known issues. Expert testimony establishing that these vibration characteristics substantially exceed industry norms for comparable SUVs is particularly effective in establishing that the defect represents a design flaw rather than normal operational characteristics. Courts in several states have found that excessive vibration alone can meet the ‘substantial impairment’ standard when it significantly impacts comfort and creates reasonable concerns about long-term durability of affected components.