Originally Posted by Mojo31

It is my understanding that the MMA puts the burden of proof on the manufacturer to prove misuse in the case of a full warranty. Cars don't come with full warranties, but come with limited warranties, so the burden of proof is different. In that case, the consumer must prove: (i) a warranty was made, (ii) the warranty was breached, (iii) a loss was sustained, and (iv) the loss was caused by the breach of the warranty. The burden in that situation is on the consumer and the burden is preponderance of the evidence. If the manufacturer relies on a provision of the limited warranty to limit or preclude warranty coverage, then it must show by a preponderance of the evidence the facts demonstrating that the warranty no longer applies, that is, that the product was changed such that it no longer worked as designed or marketed.

In situations where misuse is a defense, the burden is on the manufacturer to prove the defense, again by a preponderance of the evidence. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" is not a burden of proof typically seen in civil cases and certainly not in warranty cases.

With all of that, it's an uphill battle, one in which the legal fees will quickly exceed the amount involved. But, if there was a consumer made modification, such as a tune, and the failure occurs in the path of the modification, the consumer will rarely, if ever, come out ahead.