Volvo Lemon Law Lawyers

Volvo’s advanced safety system failures present particularly strong lemon law cases because they directly undermine the brand’s core value proposition of vehicle safety. Defects in City Safety, Pilot Assist, blind spot detection, and collision avoidance systems in XC90, XC60, and other models clearly affect safety despite Volvo’s occasional defense that these are supplemental features. For successful lemon law claims, document all false alerts, detection failures, unexpected automatic braking incidents, and system malfunction warnings. Volvo typically defends by performing software updates rather than component replacements, which often fails to permanently resolve sensor calibration issues. When building your case, emphasize how safety system malfunctions actually create new hazards through unpredictable vehicle behavior, directly contradicting the reasonable safety expectations associated with the Volvo brand.

Volvo’s integrated active safety systems create unique lemon law considerations because calibration issues can cause false alerts and automatic braking events that clearly affect safety despite functioning ‘as designed’ according to Volvo’s diagnostics. In XC90, XC60, and other models, these systems occasionally detect phantom obstacles, apply brakes unexpectedly, or fail to detect actual objects, creating dangerous driving situations. Volvo typically defends by performing software updates and sensor alignments rather than component replacements, often claiming that environmental factors rather than defects trigger false alerts. To strengthen your claim, document every false activation or failure incident with specific details about conditions, speed, and system warnings displayed. Video evidence of unnecessary automatic braking is particularly powerful. Several courts have found that safety systems creating unpredictable vehicle behavior meet the ‘substantial impairment of safety’ standard regardless of whether diagnostics show component failures, as the unpredictability itself constitutes a safety defect.

Volvo vehicles equipped with power memory seats, particularly XC90, XC60, and S90 models, have experienced specific defect patterns that strengthen lemon law claims. These vehicles may exhibit symptoms including movement failures, position memory loss, unexpected adjustments while driving, and mechanical grinding noises indicating track or motor problems. Volvo typically defends by performing module resets rather than mechanical repairs, often attributing problems to software rather than hardware despite evidence of physical component failures. To build a strong case, document all symptoms chronologically, noting any safety implications when seats move unexpectedly during driving or fail to adjust to safe positions. Volvo’s technical service bulletins regarding seat track lubrication and module programming provide evidence of known issues despite carefully worded language. Courts in several states have found that seat malfunctions can meet the ‘substantial impairment of safety’ standard when they affect proper positioning relative to controls and airbags, or the ‘substantial impairment of use’ standard when frequent adjustments are required for multiple drivers but cannot be reliably performed.

Volvo vehicles equipped with turbocharged Drive-E engines, particularly in XC60, XC90, and S60 models, have experienced specific defect patterns that strengthen lemon law claims. These vehicles may exhibit symptoms including excessive oil consumption, turbocharger failures causing power loss or unusual noises, oil leaks from PCV system components, and coolant loss without visible external leaks. Volvo typically defends by replacing individual components rather than addressing system design vulnerabilities, creating a pattern of repeated repairs as the problem migrates between turbochargers, PCV systems, and seals. To build a strong case, document all symptoms including oil consumption measurements, performance changes, warning lights, and diagnostic codes retrieved during service visits. Volvo’s technical service bulletins regarding turbocharger oil feed specifications and PCV system updates provide evidence of known issues. Expert testimony establishing that these consumption rates substantially exceed industry norms is particularly effective in establishing that the defect represents a design flaw rather than normal wear, especially when consumption begins early in the vehicle’s life and continues despite multiple repair attempts addressing related systems.

Volvo vehicles equipped with advanced driver assistance systems, particularly XC60, XC90, and S90 models with forward collision warning and automatic emergency braking, have experienced specific defect patterns that strengthen lemon law claims. These vehicles may exhibit symptoms including false collision warnings triggering unexpected braking, failure to detect actual obstacles, inconsistent warning timing creating driver confusion, and system unavailability messages despite clear operating conditions. Volvo typically defends by performing sensor alignments and software updates rather than component replacements, often attributing problems to environmental factors rather than system defects despite failures in ideal conditions. To build a strong case, document all system malfunctions with detailed descriptions of driving conditions, road markings, and weather circumstances when failures occur. Video evidence of false activations or detection failures is particularly compelling. Volvo’s technical service bulletins regarding ADAS calibration procedures provide evidence of known issues despite carefully worded language avoiding defect acknowledgment. Courts in several states have found that safety systems creating unpredictable vehicle behavior meet the ‘substantial impairment of safety’ standard regardless of whether diagnostics show component failures, as the unpredictability itself constitutes a safety defect affecting Volvo’s core brand value proposition of safety leadership.