Skip to main content
Connecticut Lemon Law

Lemon Law Attorneys in Connecticut

At RockPoint Law, lemon law is the whole practice. We act for Connecticut drivers whose new vehicle keeps going back for the same fault, whether that is a stall on I-95 at Bridgeport or a drivetrain warning that returns every time the car comes off the lift in Waterbury. Connecticut gives you an unusually well-built remedy for that. The Department of Consumer Protection appoints the arbitrator, gathers the evidence itself, and hands that arbitrator an independent mechanic to consult before the decision is made. What it will not do is order the manufacturer to try fixing the car again.

All 169 Connecticut towns State expert advises the arbitrator Two repairs on a safety fault

Free Case Evaluation

Three quick questions. No cost, no obligation.

  • The year and make of your vehicle
  • What the dealer has already tried
  • How to reach you, and we review it
Get My Free Case Evaluation →

Sending this does not create an attorney-client relationship. A case evaluation is a first step, not legal representation.

The Short Answer

The Connecticut Lemon Law, in Brief

Yes, Connecticut has a lemon law, and it dates from 1982. If you bought or leased a new vehicle in Connecticut and a fault that substantially impairs its use, safety or value is still there after four repair attempts, or after thirty calendar days out of service, the manufacturer has to replace it or refund what you paid. A fault likely to cause death or serious injury needs only two attempts, on a shorter clock. The claim goes to an arbitrator appointed by the Department of Consumer Protection, and the department builds the case file itself.

The statute is chapter 743b of the General Statutes, sections 42-179 to 42-190, and its history is part of the answer. Public Act 82-287 created the Lemon Law in 1982, and the Department of Consumer Protection's own 2025 annual report describes Connecticut as “the first state to establish an automobile dispute program in 1982.” The state-run arbitration program itself came two years later, in Public Act 84-338, and section 42-181(b) applies it to vehicles bought on or after 1 October 1984. Two acts, two years, and it is worth keeping them apart.

Start with the window. Section 42-179(b) asks you to report the fault within two years of original delivery or within the first 24,000 miles of operation, whichever ends first. Only the report has to land inside that period: the same subsection obliges the manufacturer to make the repairs “notwithstanding the fact that such repairs are made after the expiration of the applicable period.”

Then the thresholds, and Connecticut has three where most states have two. The ordinary route under section 42-179(e)(1) is the same fault repaired four or more times with the fault still existing, or the vehicle out of service for a cumulative thirty or more calendar days. The third route is the one worth reading twice. Section 42-179(f) says that where the fault “results in a condition which is likely to cause death or serious bodily injury if the vehicle is driven”, two repairs are enough, but it confines that route to “the express warranty term or ... one year following the date of the original delivery, whichever period ends first.” So the safety prong gives you fewer repairs and less time. Summaries that mention the two repairs and not the one year have given you the easy half.

One precondition sits underneath all three. Section 42-179(e)(3) bars any claim “unless at least one attempt to repair a nonconformity has been made”, or unless the manufacturer, its agent or a dealer refused to attempt one. That second limb matters: a refusal to look at the car is not a dead end, it is a route in.

On notice, Connecticut does something neither neighbor does. It makes the answer depend on your own paperwork. Section 42-179(c) says no consumer shall be required to notify the manufacturer of a claim unless the manufacturer has clearly and conspicuously disclosed, in the warranty or the owner's manual, that written notification is required before you can be eligible for a refund or replacement. And if the manufacturer does impose that requirement, the same subsection makes it give you the name and address to send the notice to. So the first thing to do is read your own manual. Pennsylvania asks the consumer for nothing at all and puts a seven-day certified-mail duty on the dealer instead. Delaware will not apply its presumption unless the manufacturer had prior written notice from you. Connecticut makes the manufacturer decide, in advance and in writing.

Where the claim goes depends on one question, and Connecticut does not publish the answer. Section 42-181(b) opens the Department of Consumer Protection's arbitration to you if the manufacturer has not established an informal dispute settlement procedure certified by the Attorney General. So the state program and the manufacturer's own panel are alternatives, and the Attorney General's certification decides which you are in. Section 42-182 gives the Attorney General the job: an annual report, certificates of approval, subpoena power, hearings that must be open to the public, and the power to suspend or revoke. Unlike Delaware, which publishes its register of certified manufacturers, Connecticut publishes no list, so this is a question to ask at the start rather than an answer to look up.

If you are in the state program, it is a genuinely well-resourced forum and the detail is worth knowing. Section 42-181(b) sets a $50 filing fee for you and $250 for the manufacturer, which has fifteen days to file its own form. Section 42-181(d) then makes the Department “investigate, gather and organize all information necessary for a fair and timely decision”, lets the Commissioner issue subpoenas on the arbitrator's behalf, and requires the Department to send every piece of written evidence to an independent technical expert certified by the National Institute of Automotive Service Excellence, who reviews it and is available to advise the arbitrator. The decision is due within sixty days of your filing. And section 42-181(d) lists what the arbitrator may order — replacement, the full contract price with collateral charges, reimbursement and incidental damages, anything available under Magnuson-Moss — then ends the list with four words that matter: “other than repair of the vehicle.” The state forum does not hand out middle outcomes.

If a manufacturer loses and does nothing, section 42-181(e) makes every additional day of willful non-compliance a separate violation for section 42-184 purposes and lets the Department fine it up to $1,000 a day until it performs. Judicial review goes to the Superior Court for the judicial district where one of the parties lives, on a two-track standard: de novo on questions of law, and on the facts the court “shall uphold the award unless” the findings are “not supported by substantial evidence” and the moving party's substantial rights were prejudiced. The clock for challenging an award is not in the Lemon Law at all: it is thirty days from notice of the award, under section 52-420(b).

Two more Connecticut statutes sit behind this one, and between them they cover ground Pennsylvania and Delaware leave empty. Chapter 743f puts a warranty on almost every used car a dealer sells here, priced rather than mileaged: 30 days or 1,500 miles between $3,000 and $5,000, 60 days or 3,000 miles above $5,000, with “as is” permitted only below $3,000 or on a vehicle seven model years or older, and then only in a boxed notice in twelve-point boldface that you have to sign inside the box. Chapter 743g is the one almost nobody knows about: it forces a manufacturer to tell you about any warranty adjustment program covering your vehicle, to hand over the service bulletin on request, to write to every eligible owner within ninety days of adopting one, and to reimburse anyone who paid for a covered repair before they knew the program existed.

If your vehicle keeps failing anywhere in Connecticut, our team can read your repair invoices and tell you which of section 42-179's three routes your record meets.

Schedule a Free Case Evaluation →
Eligibility

What Qualifies for the Lemon Law in Connecticut?

Connecticut gives you three routes to the presumption where most states give two, and a precondition that applies to all of them. Section 42-179(e) sets the ordinary pair, section 42-179(f) adds the safety route, and section 42-179(e)(3) requires at least one repair attempt, or a refusal to make one, before any claim can be brought. The fourth card is the forum question, which in Connecticut is decided by somebody else's certificate. Read the safety card carefully: the two-repair route is real, and it comes on a shorter clock than the other two.

Four Repairs of the Same Fault

The same nonconformityConnecticut's word for the fault. Section 42-179(d)(1) frames it as a defect or condition that substantially impairs the USE, SAFETY or VALUE of the vehicle TO THE CONSUMER, and those last three words do real work: Connecticut's courts treat the test as both subjective and objective, so what the vehicle is worth to you is part of the question rather than beside it. goes back four or more times and still exists. Section 42-179(e)(1)(A) runs this on the full rights period — two years from original delivery or the first 24,000 miles, whichever ends first — and asks that the fault “continues to exist” at the end of it. Four is one more than Pennsylvania asks for and the same as Delaware.

A Connecticut example A new SUV back at a Danbury dealer four times for the same transmission shudder, still shuddering at 19,000 miles

Two Repairs, If the Fault Could Kill You, On a Shorter Clock

This is the route Connecticut has and its neighbors do not, and it cuts both ways. Section 42-179(f) presumes a reasonable number of attempts where the fault “results in a condition which is likely to cause death or serious bodily injury if the vehicle is driven” and it “has been subject to repair at least twice”. So two attempts rather than four. But read the rest of the sentence. That route is confined to “the express warranty term or ... one year following the date of the original delivery, whichever period ends first.” The ordinary route gives you two years and 24,000 miles. The safety route gives you one year or the warranty term. Fewer repairs, less time. Most summaries carry the first half and drop the second.

A Connecticut example Brakes that have twice failed to hold on a hill, written up both times inside the first eleven months, and still not right

Thirty Calendar Days, or At Least One Attempt

Two separate things, and both are about counting rather than about the fault. Section 42-179(e)(1)(B) qualifies a vehicle out of service for repair for a cumulative thirty or more calendar days inside the rights period. Calendar days, so a weekend at the dealership counts, and note the threshold wording: Connecticut says “thirty or more”, so the thirtieth day is enough, where Delaware's “more than 30” means the thirty-first. Separately, section 42-179(e)(3) sets a floor on every route: no claim at all unless at least one repair attempt has been made, or unless the manufacturer, its agent or an authorized dealer refused to attempt one. A dealership that will not take the car in has not blocked your claim; it has supplied the second limb of that clause.

A Connecticut example A pickup that sits at a New Britain service department across three visits for unrelated faults and passes thirty cumulative days, with the first visit documented

Which Forum You Are In, and Who Decides That

Connecticut runs two routes and you do not choose between them. Section 42-181(b) opens the Department of Consumer Protection's arbitration to you only if your manufacturer has not established an informal dispute settlement procedure certified by the Attorney General under section 42-182. If it has, section 42-179(j) closes the refund-and-replacement provisions to you until you have used that procedure first. So the answer turns on a certificate held by somebody else, and Connecticut does not publish the list, which Delaware does. There is a second bite if the manufacturer's panel is run badly: section 42-181(h) lets a consumer injured by a procedure that does not conform to section 42-182(b) and 16 C.F.R. Part 703 request arbitration de novo from a state arbitrator, and the manufacturer panel's findings may then be admissible in evidence.

A Connecticut example A letter from the manufacturer insisting on its own program, and a claim that turns out to be eligible for the state forum because no certification was ever in place

Meeting a test starts the analysis rather than finishing it. Section 42-179(d)(4) gives the manufacturer two defenses to run: that the fault does not substantially impair use, safety or value, or that it came from abuse, neglect or unauthorized modifications or alterations by a consumer. Note those last two words, because a modification the dealer made is not a defense. Because all of this turns on records, keep every repair order and invoice, with the drop-off and collection dates, plus the purchase or lease agreement and your odometer readings. Connecticut gives you a statutory lever for that paperwork: section 42-179a makes a dealer or a manufacturer's authorized agent hand over copies of any paperwork or invoices relating to repair work on request, and failing to do so is an infraction. And the mileage at every stage is worth writing down here for a reason that does not apply in Pennsylvania: Connecticut's use deduction keeps counting right up to the day the manufacturer takes the car back.

Not sure which of the three routes your repair history clears? Send it over for a straight read.

Get a Free Case Evaluation →
Where Your Case Is Heard

Filing From Connecticut: The Department, the Arbitrator, and the Deadlines

The question we hear most from Connecticut drivers is whether a claim means a trip to Hartford. Mostly not. A Connecticut lemon law claim starts as a filing with a state department, the department does a surprising amount of the work, and the hearing is the last step rather than the first.

A State Department, and It Builds the File

Section 42-181(a) makes the Department of Consumer Protection provide the arbitration, and the Commissioner appoints the arbitrator: someone who must be a member of an arbitration organization, who is paid for the work, and who may not be an employee or contractor of any business involved in the manufacture, distribution, sale or service of motor vehicles. Then section 42-181(d) does something no neighboring statute does. The Department “shall investigate, gather and organize all information necessary for a fair and timely decision”, and the Commissioner “may issue subpoenas on behalf of any arbitrator” to compel witnesses and documents. You are not assembling the record alone.

An Independent Mechanic Advises the Decision

This is the provision worth knowing about above all the others. Section 42-181(d) requires the Department to forward all written testimony and every piece of documentary evidence to “an independent technical expert certified by the National Institute of Automotive Service Excellence”, or someone with equivalent credentials, “who shall review such material and be available to advise and consult with the arbitrator.” So the person deciding whether your car is a lemon has a qualified motor technician to consult, supplied by the state and independent of the manufacturer. Pennsylvania gives you a judge. Delaware gives you a court. Connecticut gives the decision-maker a mechanic.

Sixty Days, and No Repair Order

Section 42-181(d) gives the arbitrator sixty days from your filing to decide, and says a late decision is still valid. Liability turns “solely on whether the manufacturer has failed to comply with section 42-179”. The remedies are replacement with a vehicle acceptable to you, the full contract price plus collateral charges, reimbursement and incidental damages, and anything available under the federal Magnuson-Moss Act. Then the list ends “other than repair of the vehicle.” The exclusion is deliberate. A manufacturer's own panel can tell you to try another repair. The state arbitrator cannot, which makes the choice of forum a strategy question rather than a formality.

Then the Superior Court, and a Thirty-Day Clock That Is Not in the Lemon Law

The award is “final and binding as to the rights of the parties ... subject only to judicial review.” Either side may apply to the Superior Court for the judicial district where one of them lives, and the standard has two tracks: de novo on questions of law, and on the facts the court “shall uphold the award unless” the arbitrator's findings are “not supported by substantial evidence” and the moving party's substantial rights were prejudiced, with an instruction to search the record for a basis to uphold if the findings are thin. The deadline lives elsewhere: section 52-420(b) allows no motion to vacate, modify or correct “after thirty days from the notice of the award.” Section 52-417 separately gives one year to apply to confirm.

Connecticut built a forum; its neighbors hand you a courthouse

Connecticut is the only one of these states where the adjudicator is handed a technical expert and the agency does the evidence-gathering, and it is the only one where the Commissioner can subpoena a manufacturer's documents on the arbitrator's behalf. Pennsylvania routes a consumer to a court of common pleas with their own paperwork. Delaware routes them to a court with their own paperwork and no state arbitration at all.

If the manufacturer ignores the award

Section 42-181(e) makes every additional day of willful non-compliance a separate violation for section 42-184 purposes, and lets the Department impose a fine of up to $1,000 a day until it performs, paid into the new automobile warranties account. If it appeals “without good cause”, the court may award the consumer costs and fees.

And section 42-181(f) puts the whole program's record where it matters commercially: the Department's annual statistics on manufacturer compliance go to the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles and are “considered a factor in determining the issuance of any manufacturer license”, and the summary is a public record. A manufacturer's conduct in Connecticut lemon law arbitration feeds back into its permission to sell cars in Connecticut.

The deadlines a Connecticut claim actually runs against

Connecticut puts almost all of its time pressure after the decision rather than before the filing, which is the opposite of most states:

  • The rights period is two years from original delivery or the first 24,000 miles of operation, whichever ends first, under section 42-179(b). Only the report has to fall inside it.
  • The safety route runs on a shorter clock: section 42-179(f) confines it to the express warranty term or one year from original delivery, whichever ends first. Two repairs, but less time.
  • There is no deadline to request arbitration. Section 42-181 sets none, and the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies set none either. Massachusetts closes its program eighteen months after delivery; Georgia gives one year after the rights period. Connecticut names no date.
  • Once an award is made the clock is short and it is in a different chapter: section 52-420(b) allows no motion to vacate, modify or correct after thirty days from notice of the award. Section 52-417 gives one year to apply to confirm.
  • Waiting is not free even without a filing deadline. Section 42-179(d)(3) counts miles to the manufacturer's acceptance of the return, so every mile driven while the dispute runs reduces the award.
The filing itself: fees, screening, and deciding it on the documents

Section 42-181(b) sets the consumer's fee at $50 and the manufacturer's at $250, and gives the manufacturer fifteen days to file its form. Those two figures are quoted from the statute's own text; the Department does not currently restate them on its live Lemon Law pages, so check the current form before relying on the amount. Section 42-185 is firm that “no filing fee ... shall be waived, refunded, reduced or withheld” except as the chapter provides or by a court order made on proof of economic hardship.

If the Department rejects a complaint at the initial-review stage, section 42-181(b) lets you take that rejection to an arbitrator for a final decision on a written request and a further $50. And by written agreement signed after you have started, the whole case can be decided on the documents without a hearing at all.

One rule catches people who sell the car while the claim runs. Under section 42-181(c), from filing until a decision or settlement you must tell any buyer that an action is pending before they sign the bill of sale, with the case number, then notify the Department within five days of the sale with the buyer's details and an attestation that you gave that notice.

The program keeps score, and the score is a public record

Section 42-181(f) makes the Department maintain records of every dispute, including an index of disputes by brand name and model, and annually compile statistics on manufacturer compliance with arbitration decisions and on the number of refunds or replacements awarded.

That summary is filed with the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, is considered a factor in issuing any manufacturer license, and is a public record. The Department publishes an annual report of the program's work. No other statute in this region requires anything comparable, and it means the forum's track record is checkable rather than asserted.

The sign on the showroom wall, and the second bite at a bad panel

Where a manufacturer has no Attorney General certification, section 42-181(g) requires public notice of the availability of the Department's dispute settlement procedure to be prominently posted in the place of business of each new car dealer selling that manufacturer's vehicles, and display of that notice is a condition of licensure. So there may be one on the wall where you bought the car.

And section 42-181(h) gives a consumer injured by a manufacturer procedure that does not conform to section 42-182(b) and the federal rules the right to request arbitration de novo from a state arbitrator. The manufacturer panel's findings may be admissible in evidence at that arbitration and in any later civil action, and the consumer may ask the Attorney General to investigate whether the certification should be suspended or revoked.

Not sure whether your manufacturer holds an Attorney General certification, or which forum that puts you in? We work that out first, at no cost.

  • Bring your repair invoices and the dates. That is usually enough to see whether your record clears the four-repair, the thirty-day or the two-repair safety route.
  • You speak with the people who would work the file, not an intake desk.
  • Connecticut sets no deadline to file for arbitration, but the use deduction keeps counting until the manufacturer takes the car back. Waiting is not free here.

Pick a time to the right and we can confirm it.

Pick a time that suits you

Video call or phone, wherever you are in Connecticut. Tell us when and we can confirm it.








    A Connecticut driver on the phone at home while a Department of Consumer Protection lemon law arbitration request is prepared and filed for them
    You Stay Put

    Most of a Connecticut claim happens on paper

    People hear “arbitration” and picture a day in Hartford. The statute says otherwise for most of it. A request goes in on the Department of Consumer Protection's own form with the section 42-181(b) filing fee, the Department reviews it for eligibility, and then, this is the part that surprises people, the Department itself investigates, gathers and organizes the information and sends all of it to an ASE-certified technical expert who advises the arbitrator. Where both sides agree in writing after the request has been made, section 42-181(b) lets the case be decided on the written documents alone.

    We establish whether your manufacturer holds an Attorney General certification, read your owner's manual to find out whether section 42-179(c) imposes any notice on you at all, collect the invoices section 42-179a entitles you to, count the calendar days, work out which of the three routes your record actually clears, run the section 42-179(d)(3) offset arithmetic, and deal with the manufacturer. Your part is the phone call that starts it.

    Start from home →
    How It Works

    The Lemon Law Process for a Connecticut Driver

    A Connecticut claim has more machinery behind it than its neighbors and one question at the front that nobody publishes the answer to. There is no deadline to file, there are three possible routes to the presumption, and the forum depends on a certificate held by the manufacturer.

    Sculpted marble figure reading an owner's manual to find out whether the manufacturer imposed a written notice requirement under Connecticut section 42-179(c)

    Check the Vehicle, the Clock, and Your Owner's Manual

    Section 42-179(a)(2) reaches a passenger motor vehicle, a passenger and commercial motor vehicle or a motorcycle as section 14-1 defines them, sold or leased in Connecticut, leases included. The only size test is section 14-1(74)'s ten passengers including the driver, and there is no weight limit and no business-use exclusion. Then section 42-179(b): the fault has to have been reported inside two years or 24,000 miles, whichever ended first. And read your manual, because section 42-179(c) makes written notice to the manufacturer a requirement only if the manufacturer disclosed that requirement in the warranty or the owner's manual, in which case it also had to tell you the address.

    Sculpted marble figure collecting repair invoices a Connecticut dealer must hand over on request under section 42-179a

    Collect the Invoices, Using Section 42-179a If You Have To

    Connecticut gives no routine safety inspection of ordinary cars, so there is no annual state record of your vehicle's condition to fall back on. Your repair paperwork is the evidence. Section 42-179a makes a dealer or a manufacturer's authorized agent give you copies of any paperwork or invoices relating to repair work on request, and makes a refusal an infraction, so this is a right rather than a favor. Check that each invoice names the fault in the same words, note the drop-off and collection date on each, and record the odometer at every visit.

    Sculpted marble figure completing the Department of Consumer Protection arbitration request form that opens a Connecticut lemon law claim

    Work Out Which of the Three Routes Fits

    Four repairs of the same fault with the fault still there, under section 42-179(e)(1)(A). Or thirty or more cumulative calendar days out of service, under section 42-179(e)(1)(B). Or, if the fault is likely to cause death or serious bodily injury if the car is driven, two repairs under section 42-179(f), but inside the express warranty term or one year from delivery, whichever ended first. And under section 42-179(e)(3), at least one repair attempt must have been made, or one of them must have refused to make it.

    Sculpted marble figure examining a drivetrain component, the independent technical expert Connecticut supplies to advise its lemon law arbitrator

    Establish the Forum, Then File

    Section 42-181(b) opens the Department's arbitration only where your manufacturer has no Attorney General certification for its own program. Connecticut publishes no list, so this gets established rather than looked up. Then the request goes in on the Department's form with the $50 fee; the manufacturer has fifteen days to return its form with $250. The Department screens for eligibility, and a rejection can itself be put to an arbitrator for a final decision on a written request and a further $50. There is no deadline in the statute or the regulations for making the request in the first place.

    Two sculpted marble figures at a hearing table where a Connecticut state-appointed arbitrator decides a new automobile warranty dispute

    The Decision, Then Thirty Days

    The Department gathers the evidence, subpoenas what it needs, and sends everything to an ASE-certified technical expert who advises the arbitrator. The decision is due inside sixty days and turns solely on whether the manufacturer complied with section 42-179. The arbitrator can order replacement, the full contract price with collateral charges, reimbursement and incidental damages, but not a repair. If the manufacturer does not perform by the date set, the Department can fine it up to $1,000 a day. And if either side wants to challenge the award, section 52-420(b) gives thirty days from notice of it, a deadline that appears nowhere in the Lemon Law itself.

    In practice each of those five stages is a place a Connecticut claim comes apart: four invoices describing one fault four ways, a thirty-day count built on business days, a safety-fault claim brought at fourteen months when section 42-179(f) closed the window at twelve, a month spent in a manufacturer's program that held no certification, a thirty-day window to challenge an award that nobody noticed because the deadline is in a different chapter. Connecticut's forum is more heavily resourced than its neighbors', and it still rewards somebody who knows where the clocks are.

    You can run this yourself, and some Connecticut drivers do. The catch is that the first question, which forum you are even in, depends on a certificate the state does not publish. No one can promise a result, and anyone who does is telling you something they cannot know. What a firm that handles these claims can do is establish the forum, pick the right route of the three, and keep the mileage from quietly eating the award.

    Outcomes

    What Compensation Can You Receive?

    When a Connecticut claim succeeds, section 42-179(d)(1) makes the manufacturer either replace the vehicle with “a new motor vehicle acceptable to the consumer” or take it back and refund an itemized list that is more generous than most states set out. The full contract price, expressly including charges for undercoating, dealer preparation and transportation and installed options. All collateral charges, including sales tax, license and registration fees and similar government charges. All finance charges you incurred after you first reported the fault and during any later period the vehicle was out of service. And all incidental damages, which section 42-179(d)(2) defines to include the cost of inspection, transportation, care and custody of the vehicle, of covering or returning or disposing of it, and of “reasonable efforts to minimize or avoid the consequences of financial default”.

    The sales tax point is worth pausing on, because Connecticut has a second rate. On the Department of Revenue Services's own figures the general sales and use tax rate is 6.35%, but a vehicle priced over $50,000 is taxed at 7.75%. Since section 42-179(d)(1)(B) refunds sales tax as a collateral charge, the tax component of a buyback on a vehicle above that line is calculated at the higher rate, which on a vehicle in the sixties or seventies of thousands is a material difference. Compare Delaware, which has no sales tax at all, so the same clause in its statute has nothing to bite on.

    Then the deduction, and this is the Connecticut provision to understand before you decide how long to wait. Section 42-179(d)(3) sets the use allowance as the total contract price multiplied by a fraction whose denominator is 120,000 and whose numerator is “the number of miles that the vehicle traveled prior to the manufacturer's acceptance of its return”. Read that numerator again. It is not the mileage at your first report. It is the mileage when the manufacturer finally takes the car back. Pennsylvania freezes its count at your first report of the fault, and so do Delaware and Georgia. Connecticut does not. Every mile you put on a Connecticut vehicle while the dispute is running comes off your award, which is the clearest practical reason to start early.

    Worked through: on a $48,000 vehicle returned at 20,000 miles, the allowance is $48,000 times 20,000 divided by 120,000, which is $8,000. Drive it another 6,000 miles before the manufacturer accepts the return and the allowance becomes $48,000 times 26,000 divided by 120,000, or $10,400. That is $2,400 of award gone, purely to time. Refunds and replacements go “to the consumer, lessor and lienholder if any, as their interests may appear”, which matters on a leased vehicle because the lessor is named in the statute.

    On fees, Connecticut leaves it to the court and it is worth being clear about that from the start. Section 42-180 says the court “in its discretion, may award to the plaintiff his costs and reasonable attorney's fees”, and may award costs and fees to the defendant where it finds the action “was brought without any substantial justification”. The parallel route that section 42-184 creates under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act is discretionary too: section 42-110g(d) says the court “may award” costs and reasonable fees, calculated “based on the work reasonably performed by an attorney and not on the amount of recovery”. There is one narrower provision: under section 42-181(e), if the court finds the manufacturer appealed an award “without good cause”, it may grant the consumer costs and fees, also discretionary. Pennsylvania's section 1958 says a purchaser shall be entitled to fees. Connecticut says may, three times over.

    Where a claim runs on federal warranty law instead, the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act has its own fee provision under 15 U.S.C. section 2310 for a consumer who finally prevails.

    Outcomes depend on the specific facts of each case, so no attorney can promise a particular result.

    Possible Outcomes

    A refund of the full contract price

    including undercoating, dealer preparation, transportation and installed options, as section 42-179(d)(1)(A) itemizes them

    Or a replacement

    a new vehicle acceptable to you, with the lessor and any lienholder paid as their interests appear

    Collateral charges

    sales tax at the rate that actually applied, which is 7.75% above $50,000, plus license and registration fees

    Finance charges and incidental damages

    finance charges from your first report onward, plus inspection, transport, care and custody

    Costs and fees, where the court awards them

    section 42-180 leaves that to the court's discretion, in either direction

    Vehicles We Handle

    Which Vehicles the Connecticut Statute Reaches, and Which It Does Not

    Connecticut does this differently from its neighbors, and the difference matters. Section 42-179 contains no exclusion list at all: no carve-out for motor homes, none for off-road vehicles, none for business use. Instead section 42-179(a)(2) reaches three named vehicle classes as section 14-1 defines them, and anything that is not one of those three is simply outside the chapter. So the questions here are answered by definitions rather than by exclusions, and the only size test in sight is a ten-passenger capacity.

    Cars, Vans and Light Trucks

    Covered as “passenger motor vehicles”. Section 14-1(74) defines that as a vehicle for the private transportation of persons and their belongings “designed to carry occupants in comfort and safety, with a capacity of carrying not more than ten passengers including the operator”. No weight limit. Leases are in, and section 42-179(a)(1) extends “consumer” to anyone the vehicle is transferred to during the express warranty, so a second owner inside the factory warranty has rights of their own. See our practice areas.

    Heavy and Dual-Use Pickups

    Covered, by a second route most people never notice. Section 42-179(a)(2) reaches not only passenger motor vehicles but “passenger and commercial motor vehicles”, which section 14-1(73) defines as a vehicle “used for private passenger and commercial purposes which is eligible for combination registration”. So a pickup that does duty both ways is inside the chapter by name. Connecticut has no business-use exclusion of the kind Massachusetts applies and no weight ceiling of the kind Georgia sets. Derate and emissions-system faults are the pattern we see most on these, and they support a diesel emissions claim as well.

    Motorcycles and Autocycles

    Covered, expressly. Section 42-179(a)(2) lists “or a motorcycle, as defined in section 14-1”, added by Public Act 97-6. And section 14-1(61)'s definition does two useful things: it folds in an autocycle, a three-wheeler with a steering wheel and seating you do not straddle, and it folds out a motor-driven cycle, meaning a small machine under fifty cubic centimetres with a seat at least twenty-six inches high. So a Connecticut motorcycle claim runs on the same two-year, 24,000-mile clock as a car. One caution on old case law: a 1996 decision held motorcycles were not passenger motor vehicles, and it is no longer the answer, because the 1997 amendment named them as a separate class rather than arguing they were cars. See our motorcycle lemon law page.

    RVs and Motorhomes

    Outside the chapter, but by definition rather than by exclusion, and the distinction is worth understanding. Section 42-179 carves nothing out. What it does is reach only three section 14-1 classes, and a “motor home” and a “camper” are their own separate classes, neither of which appears in section 42-179(a)(2). So a Connecticut motor home is out because it is not one of the three, not because anybody excluded it. Compare the neighbors, which get to the same place by opposite means: Pennsylvania excludes motor homes by name, and Delaware excludes only “the living facilities of motor homes” and keeps the chassis. Our RV and motorhome page covers the federal route, which has no vehicle-type exclusions at all.

    Electric Vehicles

    Covered on the same terms as any other new vehicle. Battery, charging, drive-unit and software faults are the patterns we see most, and section 42-179(d)(1)'s standard is well suited to them: a fault that substantially impairs the use, safety or value of the vehicle to the consumer, on a test Connecticut's courts treat as both subjective and objective. A software fault that keeps coming back sits squarely inside section 42-179(e)(1)(A)'s “the same nonconformity ... but such nonconformity continues to exist”. Our electric vehicle lemon law page goes further.

    Not sure whether your vehicle is one of section 42-179(a)(2)'s three classes? We can tell you from the registration.

    See All Practice Areas →
    Why RockPoint

    Why Connecticut Drivers Choose RockPoint Law

    Lemon law and consumer warranty work is the whole of our practice. We act for drivers across Connecticut, and because a claim is filed with a state department rather than in a local courthouse, where you live does not decide whether it is worth bringing.

    Lemon Law Is the Whole Practice

    This is not a side practice. Warranty and lemon law is what we do, day in and day out, for drivers with defective vehicles.

    All 169 Towns, Not Just the Gold Coast

    Connecticut's counties stopped governing in 1960, and the unit that matters is the town. A claim is filed with a state department rather than in a local courthouse, so we take cases from Greenwich to Putnam, not only from inside the Fairfield County commuter belt.

    We Establish the Forum Before Anything Else

    Four repairs, or thirty calendar days, or two repairs on a safety fault inside one year. And the question underneath all three: whether your manufacturer holds an Attorney General certification, which decides whether you are in the state program at all. Connecticut does not publish that list. Working it out is the first thing we do.

    Clear Communication

    Straight updates at every stage of your case. No silent stretches and no surprises.

    No Upfront Legal Fees

    Qualifying cases run on contingency. You do not pay a fee unless we recover for you. Connecticut leaves any award of fees against the manufacturer to the court's discretion under section 42-180, and we explain what that means for your case at the start.

    The people who would work your file are the people you speak to first.

    Meet the Team →
    Side-by-Side

    Handling a Connecticut Claim Alone vs With an Attorney

    Flip the switch to see the same four moments from both sides.

    Vehicle repair invoices spread across a kitchen table with a hand hovering over them
    On your own1 / 4

    Bringing a safety-fault claim at fourteen months because two repairs are enough

    Section 42-179(f) gives you two repairs AND confines the route to the warranty term or one year from delivery, whichever ended first. The ordinary four-repair route runs for two years and 24,000 miles. Reading only the first half of that sentence is the most common Connecticut mistake.

    A person on the phone at a home desk with a notepad of call notes
    On your own2 / 4

    Taking the manufacturer's word that its own program comes first

    Section 42-181(b) opens the state arbitration where the manufacturer has NO Attorney General certification, and Connecticut publishes no list. A letter insisting on the manufacturer's panel is not proof that the panel was ever certified.

    A wall calendar with deadline dates circled in red beside a set of car keys
    On your own3 / 4

    Letting the car sit, or keep driving, while the dispute runs

    Section 42-179(d)(3) counts miles to the manufacturer's acceptance of the return, not to your first report. Connecticut is the only one of these states where the meter never stops, so delay has a price measured in dollars rather than in patience.

    One person alone at the end of a long empty hearing room table
    On your own4 / 4

    Assuming the award is the end of it, either way

    The award is binding subject to review in the Superior Court, de novo on law and substantial evidence on fact. And section 52-420(b) allows thirty days from notice of the award to move to vacate, modify or correct. That deadline is in a different chapter, which is exactly why it gets missed.

    Hands working through an organized stack of repair orders with a highlighter and index tabs
    With RockPoint Law1 / 4

    The right route of the three, and when each one closes

    We check which of section 42-179's three routes your record actually clears, and we date each one: two years and 24,000 miles for the ordinary pair, the warranty term or one year for the safety prong.

    A certified mail envelope and return receipt card being prepared on a desk
    With RockPoint Law2 / 4

    The forum established rather than assumed

    We work out whether an Attorney General certification exists, and if a non-conforming panel already decided against you, section 42-181(h) allows arbitration de novo before a state arbitrator with the panel's findings admissible.

    An open case planner with color-coded deadline tabs being marked
    With RockPoint Law3 / 4

    The offset arithmetic run up front

    Because the count runs to acceptance of the return, we do that sum at the start so the decision about how to proceed is made on the real number rather than on the one the mileage suggested last month.

    A bound exhibit folder open on a conference table
    With RockPoint Law4 / 4

    The clocks tracked, including the one in another chapter

    Sixty days for the decision, ten business days for the Department's compliance check, and thirty days under section 52-420(b) to challenge an award. We keep all three.

    Serving All 169 Towns

    On the Ground Across Connecticut

    Connecticut counted 3,605,944 residents at the 2020 census on 4,842 square miles, which works out at about 745 people per square mile and makes it denser than all but a handful of states, on the Census Bureau's own figures. It governs itself through 169 towns, and that is not a stylistic choice. Connecticut's county governments were abolished in 1960, and the Connecticut State Library puts it plainly: since then “the names and boundaries of its eight counties have existed only as geographical names.” In 2022 the US Census Bureau finished the job, formally replacing those eight counties with Connecticut's nine planning regions as the state's county equivalents, after the state's Office of Policy and Management first raised it in October 2017. So when a Connecticut driver tells you which county they are in, they are giving you a location and not a government.

    The driving here is short-hop and relentless. 21,478 miles of public road carry more than 2.8 million registered vehicles against 2.6 million licensed drivers on the Federal Highway Administration's Highway Statistics 2023, and the state sits on the corridor between New York and Boston. The Gold Star Memorial Bridge carries eleven lanes of I-95 and US-1 over the Thames between New London and Groton and is the largest structure in the state; the Pearl Harbor Memorial Bridge at New Haven was the first extradosed bridge completed in the United States when it opened fully in 2015. And then there is the Merritt Parkway, on the National Register of Historic Places since April 1991, where commercial vehicles are simply illegal: no trucks, no buses, nothing over eight thousand pounds or eight feet tall.

    Here is the part that shapes a Connecticut lemon law claim. Connecticut was building electric cars in Hartford in 1897. The Pope Manufacturing Company put electric automobiles on the road there that year, spun the electric division off in 1899 as the Columbia Automobile Company, and built Pope-Hartford petrol cars until 1914. Down in Bridgeport, the Locomobile Company built steam cars from 1899 and then luxury cars whose 1911 Model 48 cost around $10,000 when a Model T cost $300. Connecticut then passed the lemon law in 1982, which the Department of Consumer Protection describes as the first automobile dispute program in the country. And today it builds no cars at all. What it builds is jet engines at East Hartford, helicopters at Stratford and nuclear submarines at Groton, plus two genuine automotive suppliers: Stanadyne making diesel and petrol fuel injection at Windsor and Amphenol at Wallingford, which reports automobiles as fifteen per cent of its revenue. A state that was early to the car and early to the car buyer's remedy now makes the remedy and not the car.

    And one thing about Connecticut makes a claim harder, which is worth saying plainly rather than glossing. Connecticut does not require a periodic safety inspection of ordinary cars and trucks; its DMV says so in terms. Emissions testing exists, with vehicles under four model years old exempt and a $20 fee, but there is no annual roadworthiness check and therefore no yearly state record of your vehicle's condition of the kind Pennsylvania and Massachusetts owners accumulate. Your repair paperwork is the evidence. Which is why three statutory rights matter more here: section 42-179a makes a dealer hand over copies of any repair paperwork or invoices on request, and failing to is an infraction; section 42-181(d) makes the Department of Consumer Protection gather the evidence itself and lets the Commissioner subpoena what it needs; and section 42-227 makes a manufacturer disclose any warranty adjustment program covering your vehicle, hand over the service bulletin on request, write to every eligible owner within ninety days of adopting one, and reimburse anyone who already paid for a covered repair.

    Who Connecticut employs

    The employers are universities, hospitals, insurers and the aerospace plants: Yale in New Haven with around 5,842 faculty and 12,000 staff, Hartford HealthCare with about 48,000 colleagues, The Hartford and Cigna at Hartford and Bloomfield, Stanley Black & Decker at New Britain, Synchrony at Stamford, Booking Holdings and EMCOR at Norwalk, Amphenol at Wallingford, Barnes Group at Bristol, Pratt & Whitney at East Hartford, Sikorsky at Stratford, Electric Boat at Groton, and the two tribal resorts, Foxwoods at Mashantucket and Mohegan Sun at Uncasville. The commute is usually what exposes the defect.

    We take connecticut lemon law claims from across the state, including:

    • Bridgeport
    • Stamford
    • New Haven
    • Hartford
    • Waterbury
    • Norwalk
    • Danbury
    • New Britain
    • West Hartford
    • Greenwich
    • Fairfield
    • Meriden

    Three of those twelve, West Hartford, Greenwich and Fairfield, are towns rather than cities. In Connecticut that carries no hierarchy: a city is a town that adopted a city charter, and both have equivalent authority.

    How to reach us: RockPoint Law does not keep an office in Connecticut, and a Connecticut lemon law claim does not need one. The request goes to the Department of Consumer Protection, which screens it, gathers the evidence and appoints the arbitrator, and under section 42-181(b) a case can be decided on the written documents where both sides agree in writing. The quickest way to start is the online intake form, which we read the same day. If you want to read Connecticut's own material first, the Department publishes its Lemon Law program pages, and section 42-181(g) requires every new car dealer selling an uncertified manufacturer's vehicles to post a notice about the program on its own premises, so there may be one on the wall where you bought the car. Our New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania guides cover the neighboring rules, which differ from Connecticut's considerably. Reviews below are firm-wide across every state we practice in, not Connecticut-specific.

    RockPoint Law — area served in Connecticut Claims taken from all 169 Connecticut towns. Reviews below are firm-wide across every state we practice in, not Connecticut-specific. Map shows the area we serve. RockPoint Law keeps no office, and no Business Profile, in Connecticut.
    Case Results

    Recent RockPoint Law Recoveries

    These figures come from our firm's published lemon law settlement record across brands. They are firmwide results, not Connecticut outcomes, and they show what a well-documented defect claim can be worth when it is handled properly.

    $160,264: BMW X6

    Recovery on a vehicle plagued by engine, electrical, and suspension defects.

    $144,550: Porsche Macan

    Refund for a Macan with recurring suspension, drivetrain, electrical, and HVAC problems.

    $110,289: Rivian R1T

    Recovery after repeated electrical, drive-unit, and suspension failures on an electric pickup.

    Figures are drawn from our firm's published settlement record and are not specific to Connecticut matters. Prior results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome in any future case. See more RockPoint Law settlements →

    FAQ

    Connecticut Lemon Law Questions

    The questions Connecticut drivers ask us most, and what you should know before you send anything.

    Does Connecticut have a lemon law?
    Yes, and it was the first state to pass one. Public Act 82-287 created it in 1982, and the Department of Consumer Protection's 2025 annual report describes Connecticut as the first state to establish an automobile dispute program in that year. The statute is chapter 743b of the General Statutes, sections 42-179 to 42-190. The state-run arbitration program came two years later, under Public Act 84-338, and applies to vehicles bought on or after 1 October 1984. Section 42-179 makes the manufacturer repair a fault you report inside two years or 24,000 miles, and replace or refund the vehicle once it has had a reasonable number of attempts. Section 42-181 then puts the claim before an arbitrator the Department appoints.
    What qualifies for the lemon law in Connecticut?
    A vehicle qualifies when a defect substantially impairs its use, safety or value to the consumer and survives a reasonable number of attempts. Connecticut gives three routes where most states give two. Section 42-179(e)(1) covers the same fault repaired four or more times with the fault still existing, or thirty or more cumulative calendar days out of service, both inside two years or 24,000 miles. Section 42-179(f) adds a third: two repairs where the fault is likely to cause death or serious bodily injury, but only inside the warranty term or one year from delivery. Underneath all three, section 42-179(e)(3) bars any claim unless at least one repair attempt was made, or the manufacturer or dealer refused one.
    How many repair attempts does Connecticut require?
    Four of the same fault under section 42-179(e)(1)(A), with the fault still existing, on the two-year or 24,000-mile clock. But Connecticut also has a safety route that almost every summary reports only half of. Section 42-179(f) presumes a reasonable number of attempts after just two repairs where the fault results in a condition likely to cause death or serious bodily injury if the vehicle is driven. The catch is in the same sentence: that route is confined to the express warranty term or one year following original delivery, whichever ends first. So the safety route gives you fewer repairs and less time than the ordinary one. Which route fits depends on what the fault is and when it was written up.
    What is the Connecticut lemon law time frame?
    Section 42-179(b) gives you two years following original delivery or the first 24,000 miles of operation, whichever ends first, and only the report of the fault has to fall inside that. The same subsection obliges the manufacturer to repair notwithstanding that the work happens after the period expires. The safety route at section 42-179(f) runs on a shorter clock, the warranty term or one year, whichever ends first. After that, something unusual and in your favor: section 42-181 sets no deadline at all for requesting arbitration, and neither do the regulations. The tight clock comes at the other end. Once an award is made, section 52-420(b) allows thirty days from notice of it to move to vacate, modify or correct.
    Do I have to write to the manufacturer before I file in Connecticut?
    Only if the manufacturer told you to, in writing, in advance. Section 42-179(c) says no consumer shall be required to notify the manufacturer of a claim unless the manufacturer has clearly and conspicuously disclosed, in the warranty or the owner's manual, that written notification of the fault is required before you can be eligible for a refund or replacement. And if it does impose that requirement, the same subsection makes it give you the name and address to send the notice to. So the answer is in your own glovebox. Compare the neighbors: Pennsylvania asks the consumer for nothing and puts the duty on the dealer, while Delaware withholds its presumption unless the manufacturer had prior written notice from you.
    Where is a Connecticut lemon law case actually heard?
    Before an arbitrator appointed by the Commissioner of Consumer Protection, under section 42-181(a), who must belong to an arbitration organization and must have no connection to any vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repairer. The Department does more than schedule it. Section 42-181(d) makes it investigate, gather and organize all the information, lets the Commissioner issue subpoenas on the arbitrator's behalf, and requires every piece of written evidence to go to an independent technical expert certified by the National Institute of Automotive Service Excellence, who advises the arbitrator. The decision is due within sixty days. One limit is worth knowing: the arbitrator may order replacement, refund, reimbursement and damages, but section 42-181(d) excludes repair of the vehicle by name.
    Do I have to go through the manufacturer's arbitration first in Connecticut?
    It depends on a certificate, and Connecticut does not publish the list. Section 42-181(b) opens the Department's arbitration to you only if your manufacturer has not established an informal dispute settlement procedure certified by the Attorney General. If it has one, section 42-179(j) closes the refund-and-replacement provisions until you have used it. Section 42-182 gives the Attorney General the certifying job, with an annual report, subpoena power, public hearings and the power to suspend or revoke. Delaware publishes its register of certified manufacturers; Connecticut does not, so this gets established rather than looked up. There is a second chance if the manufacturer's panel was run badly: section 42-181(h) allows arbitration de novo before a state arbitrator where a procedure does not conform to the federal rules.
    Does the Connecticut lemon law cover a used car?
    Not chapter 743b, but Connecticut has a separate used-vehicle statute that Pennsylvania and Delaware both lack. Chapter 743f tiers the dealer's warranty by price rather than mileage: 30 days or 1,500 miles between $3,000 and $5,000, and 60 days or 3,000 miles at $5,000 and above, covering the full cost of parts and labor. A dealer selling at $3,000 or more may not disclaim implied warranties at all, and may not dilute the warranty with phrases like fifty-fifty or drive train only. It does not apply below $3,000, between dealers, or to a vehicle seven model years or older. As is sales are allowed only in those last two cases, in a boxed twelve-point notice you sign inside the box.
    Does it cover motorcycles, RVs or heavy pickups?
    Motorcycles yes, heavy pickups yes, motorhomes no. Section 42-179(a)(2) reaches three classes as section 14-1 defines them: a passenger motor vehicle, a passenger and commercial motor vehicle, or a motorcycle. Motorcycles went in by Public Act 97-6, and the definition folds in an autocycle while folding out a small motor-driven cycle. A dual-use pickup is covered as a passenger and commercial motor vehicle, and there is no weight limit and no business-use exclusion. Motorhomes and campers are separate section 14-1 classes that section 42-179 never lists, so they are outside the chapter by definition rather than by an exclusion clause, which is a different route to the place Pennsylvania reaches by excluding motor homes outright. Where the chapter does not reach, the federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act has no vehicle-type exclusions at all.
    How is a Connecticut buyback calculated?
    Section 42-179(d)(1) refunds the full contract price including undercoating, dealer preparation, transportation and installed options, plus all collateral charges including sales tax and registration fees, plus finance charges incurred after your first report, plus incidental damages. Then the deduction, and Connecticut's is unusual. Section 42-179(d)(3) multiplies the total contract price by a fraction with a denominator of 120,000 and a numerator of the miles the vehicle traveled prior to the manufacturer's acceptance of its return. That count does not stop at your first report, which is where Pennsylvania, Delaware and Georgia all freeze theirs, so every mile driven while the dispute runs reduces the award. Note too that a vehicle priced over $50,000 carries Connecticut sales tax at 7.75% rather than 6.35%.
    Who pays my attorney's fees in a Connecticut lemon law case?
    That is the court's decision, and it can cut either way. Section 42-180 says the court, in its discretion, may award the plaintiff costs and reasonable attorney's fees, or, if it determines the action was brought without any substantial justification, may award costs and fees to the defendant. The parallel route that section 42-184 creates under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act is discretionary too: section 42-110g(d) says the court may award fees, calculated on the work reasonably performed rather than on the amount recovered. Section 42-181(e) adds one narrower provision, allowing the court to grant a consumer costs and fees where a manufacturer appealed an award without good cause. Pennsylvania's statute says shall. Connecticut says may.
    What does a Connecticut lemon law attorney cost, and what should I bring?
    We handle qualifying lemon law cases on contingency, so there is no upfront fee and no fee unless we recover for you. Connecticut leaves any award of fees against the manufacturer to the court's discretion under section 42-180, and we explain what that means for your case at the start. For the first conversation, bring every repair invoice with the drop-off and collection dates, the purchase or lease agreement, your current odometer reading, and your owner's manual. That last one matters here, because section 42-179(c) makes written notice a requirement only where the manual says so. If a dealer has not given you the invoices, bring what you have: section 42-179a entitles you to copies on request, so that gap can be closed.

    Written and edited by the RockPoint Law content team. Prepared September 2026 to reflect the Connecticut New Automobile Warranties statute, Conn. Gen. Stat. sections 42-179 through 42-190, arbitrated by the Department of Consumer Protection. See our editorial policy.

    Anyone can check a Connecticut attorney's license status and public discipline record through the Connecticut Judicial Branch's attorney and law firm look-up, which is the regulator's own record rather than a bio page.

    Track record

    RockPoint Law, by the numbers

    $50M+**
    Recovered for clients
    3,000+‡
    Cases handled
    25+
    Years of combined experience
    97%*
    Resolution rate
    Free Consultation
    No attorney's fees unless we recover for you.†
    Start here

    Tell us what the car is doing in Connecticut

    The same free case review the rest of the site uses. Three details about the vehicle, and how to reach you.

    • The year and make of your vehicle
    • What the dealer has already tried, and whether you paid for it
    • Your name, phone and email, and we read it the same day

    No cost, no obligation. Contacting RockPoint Law does not create an attorney-client relationship.

    Check my case
    Our Story

    Meet the Firm Behind Your Claim

    The same attorneys who handle claims nationwide handle them here. Two minutes on who we are and how we work.

    Client Stories

    What Our Clients Say

    Real results from real clients who trusted
    RockPoint Law with their lemon law claims.

    I contacted RockPoint Law in July 2025 and by mid Jan 2026, I had received my settlement proceeds. A mid 5-figure loan was paid off and the manufacturer took possession of the vehicle. Not having that car payment and the mandatory full coverage freed up about $900/month. If you're on the fence about calling RockPoint Law, let it go. The relief you will feel when it all works out will be soooo worth it.

    Read more
    HJ
    Henry Jose
    Google Review

    Was having nothing but issues with the DEF system in my Ram 3500. I didn't have high hopes because 3500 trucks are generally excluded from lemon law. The entire process from the time I contacted RockPoint Law to the time I received my settlement was under 6 months! Their response times were well above expectations.

    Read more
    JR
    Joe Russo
    Google Review

    My Telluride's transmission would jerk so hard between gears that my coffee would spill. Dealer had it four times. When I called RockPoint Law, they asked the exact technical question I'd been researching for weeks. We got a buyback with reimbursement for my deductible and rental costs. They speak fluent mechanic before they speak lawyer.

    Read more
    K
    Kirill
    Google Review

    Turbo failure on my EcoBoost F-150. Dealer replaced it once, then denied the second. Steven Nassi compared my case to known manufacturing defects for that engine. Other lawyers just saw 'engine trouble.' Steven built the argument around the known defect pattern. Secured a full refund.

    Read more
    JR
    Joshua Ragsdale
    Google Review

    Our minivan's sliding door would just stop working. Not a great feature with little kids. Tried to get it fixed under warranty three times. Final straw was when it almost closed on my son's arm. Leo was our attorney and got us a great outcome. They handled everything from start to finish.

    Read more
    JG
    Jorge Garcia
    Google Review

    My family's cross-country road trip turned into a nightmare when our brand-new SUV broke down in three different states. Each dealership kept giving us the run-around. RockPoint Law tracked every failed repair, hotel receipt, and even our unused theme park tickets. They got us a full buyback plus $8,200 for the vacation that fell apart.

    Read more
    AG
    Adam Gore
    Google Review

    The active suspension in my Ram 1500 started making a loud 'clunk' on every bump. Dealer replaced one part but the noise just moved to another corner. After the third repair, I was done. Natalie Nassi said, 'A repeated failure of a major chassis component is a clear impairment to value and use.' She didn't see a noise; she saw a failed system.

    Read more
    PM
    Piyawan Maprakhon
    Google Review

    My car is basically my mobile office. When the electrical system fried two laptops and killed my productivity, I reached out to RockPoint Law. Unlike the dealer who treated me as a nuisance, RockPoint Law saw how it impacted my ability to work. They secured a full refund on the vehicle plus $6,500 for lost income and equipment.

    Read more
    SK
    Sadie Kim
    Google Review

    The manufacturer told me I was out of luck. RockPoint Law told me otherwise — and proved it! Their lemon law experience turned my nightmare into a fair resolution. What impressed me most was their transparency — no false claims, just hard facts and harder work. Worth every penny and then some!

    Read more
    KE
    Kevin Eimuth
    Google Review

    From the moment I walked into their office shaking with frustration, the team at RockPoint Law put me at ease. They listened patiently to my whole story, then laid out a clear game plan. Six weeks later, I was holding a check that made all those repair shop trips worth it. True professionals who deliver!

    Read more
    JB
    Jatt James Bond
    Google Review

    We had two vans with the same transmission failure. RockPoint Law consolidated both claims, lined up build dates, and pushed for an extended coverage fix. Both vans were repaired, and we got downtime reimbursed.

    Read more
    KS
    Kishan Singh
    Google Review

    The hands-free liftgate on my SUV would randomly open in my garage, denting the door. I felt crazy complaining about a 'convenience feature.' Our attorney reframed it: 'An uncontrolled operation of a motorized component is a safety and property damage risk.' The team used my security camera footage as evidence. We got a solid settlement.

    Read more
    PS
    Peyman Soleimani
    Google Review
    Our Team

    Meet the Team
    Behind RockPoint Law

    A dedicated team that stands with you through every step of your Lemon Law claim.

    Steven Nassi
    Steven Nassi
    Managing Partner
    Founder · 25+ years of litigation experience
    ★ Founding Partner
    Natalie Nassi
    Natalie Nassi
    Partner
    Columbia University · 20+ years in consumer advocacy
    Ron Kaniuk
    Ron Kaniuk
    Florida Managing Partner
    St. John's University School of Law · Consumer protection & lemon law
    Aaron Waldo
    Aaron Waldo
    Attorney
    U.S. Marine Corps veteran · Automotive background
    Liam Jones
    Liam Jones
    Attorney
    Licensed in New York & New Jersey
    Christian Garcia
    Christian Garcia
    Senior Case Manager
    Case management from intake through resolution
    Rudy Gutierrez
    Rudy Gutierrez
    Intake Manager
    First point of contact for new clients & case evaluations
    Manufacturers We've Taken to Court

    We Take On the
    Biggest Names

    Don't take on the manufacturer alone.

    Tell us the vehicle and what the dealer has already tried. We establish which forum you are in and which of the three routes your record clears.

    Get Your Free Case Evaluation →
    Call Now Free Case Review →
    Free & Confidential — No attorney’s fees unless we recover for you.