Class action suit filed against Honda for animals chewing through its soy electrical casings

A class action lawsuit has been filed against Honda Motor Co. alleging the “environmentally friendly” soy casings it has begun installing in its newer vehicles attract creatures such as rabbits and rats, which are chewing through the wires. The suit claims the creatures chew their way through the electrical systems of Honda Accords and other models that use the new product. One of the named plaintiffs, who owns a dealership, claims a customer has sent him a photo of a live rabbit still inside his engine chewing the cables.

The suit alleges that Honda has refused to cover the cost of the damage, claiming it wasn’t caused by a defect, and instead sold the car owners a mouse-deterring tape to try to protect the new wiring in the cars. However, because the wiring’s casing itself is what’s attracting the animals in the first place, the casing is defective, the suit asserts. “The very notion that Honda dealers are stocking and selling ‘mouse deterrent tape’ … is an acknowledgement of the defective nature of this soy-based insulated wiring material for its intended use,” the plaintiffs claim. It alleges that numerous owners of class vehicles across the country have the same complaint and Honda refuses to cover the repair under warranty.

A named plaintiff, who lives in Wyoming, states that he has a 2012 Honda Accord that was still under warranty. On one occasion, he had parked the car for about five hours and when he returned, the car started but wouldn’t move. After having the vehicle towed to the nearest Honda dealership, he learned that the wires were chewed through by an animal and he had to replace the wires at his expense. A few months later, the wires were chewed through again, and the dealership again charged the owner to replace them. But the dealership also wrapped the soy wires in mouse-deterrent tape designed to keep rodents and other critters away from the food-based casing, the complaint states.

When the owner complained to Honda about having to pay for the repairs, the company said the problem wasn’t caused by a defect and refused to cover his costs under the car’s warranty, according to the suit.

According to the suit, the car owners shouldn’t have had to pay for their repairs out of pocket, in part because Honda knew enough about the soy-casing problem that it had begun ordering mouse-deterrent tape. Instead of correcting the defective wires, the company is forcing its customers to pay for not only the repairs, but also the tape, the plaintiffs allege.

If you have questions regarding your Honda, you should contact the experienced lemon law attorneys at Krohn & Moss, Ltd. Consumer Law Center® at www.yourlemonlawrights.com or call 1-800-US-LEMON (800-875-3666), toll free. Krohn & Moss, Ltd. Consumer Law Center® has been effectively assisting Honda customers in Lemon Law claims involving various defects in all makes and models. Our lemon law attorneys will take time to talk to you about your rights and will let you know if they can help.

Krohn & Moss, Ltd. Consumer Law Center® was founded in 1995 and has helped over 45,000 consumers nationwide enforce their rights against manufacturers of defective consumer products.

Krohn & Moss, Ltd. Consumer Law Center® is pleased to comply with state regulations concerning client statements and testimonials:

In order for you to see our client video or read our client statements, please click the green button below. You will be taken directly to the video or client statements.

If you are interested in viewing information about the lawyer/firm’s past results and testimonials about the lawyer/firm, please read and acknowledge the information below.

The information in this section contains information about the lawyer/firm’s past results, testimonials about the lawyer/firm, and statements regarding the lawyer/firm’s quality. The information has not been reviewed or approved by Bar Associations of the states in which the law firm practices.

The facts and circumstances of your case may differ from the matters in which results and testimonials have been provided.

All results of cases handled by the lawyer/firm are not provided and not all clients have given testimonials.

The results and testimonials provided are not necessarily representative of results obtained by the lawyer/firm or of the experience of all clients or others with the lawyer/firm. Past results are no guarantee of future results. Every case is different, and each client’s case must be evaluated and handled on its own merits.

The testimonials or endorsements do not constitute a guarantee, warranty, or prediction regarding the outcome of your legal matter.