Does Ohio Still Require a Live Defect After Eight Repair Attempts?

Four alternatives, one window, and a clause that appears only twice

Ohio keeps the whole counting apparatus of its new motor vehicle lemon law inside a single section. That section opens with one window, then branches into four alternatives, and any one of them alone is enough to shift the question of whether the manufacturer already had a fair chance. Three of the four measure volume: how many times the car went back, or how long it stayed. The fourth measures danger.

The difference between them is not the arithmetic. It is a six-word clause that closes two of the four alternatives and is missing from the other two. The clause asks whether the defect is still there. Two of Ohio's routes ask it in terms; the other two, as printed, do not.

What follows reads published statutory text and one reported decision. It is not legal advice, and the writer is not an attorney. Anyone with a live dispute should take the actual repair orders to a lawyer licensed in the state whose statute applies.

The text of R.C. 1345.73(A), read as printed

Ohio Revised Code, Section 1345.73 (Presumptions), in the text effective September 29, 2011, opens this way: "Except as provided in division (B) of this section, it shall be presumed that a reasonable number of attempts have been undertaken by the manufacturer, its dealer, or its authorized agent to conform a motor vehicle to any applicable express warranty if, during the period of one year following the date of original delivery or during the first eighteen thousand miles of operation, whichever is earlier, any of the following apply".

Two things are fixed before the alternatives begin. The window runs from the date of original delivery, not from the purchase agreement or the first complaint. And it has two limbs, one year and eighteen thousand miles, with the earlier arrival closing it. A commuter who covers eighteen thousand miles in seven months has a seven-month counting window.

Then the four alternatives, each sufficient alone:

  • (A)(1) — "Substantially the same nonconformity has been subject to repair three or more times and either continues to exist or recurs"
  • (A)(2) — "The vehicle is out of service by reason of repair for a cumulative total of thirty or more calendar days"
  • (A)(3) — "There have been eight or more attempts to repair any nonconformity"
  • (A)(4) — "There has been at least one attempt to repair a nonconformity that results in a condition that is likely to cause death or serious bodily injury if the vehicle is driven, and the nonconformity either continues to exist or recurs"

Divisions (A)(1) and (A)(4) both finish on the same six words: "either continues to exist or recurs". Divisions (A)(2) and (A)(3) stop at the threshold. Nothing later in the section puts a persistence requirement back on them. Division (B) deals with something else: it extends the periods for time during which the vehicle could not reasonably be repaired because of war, invasion, civil unrest, strike, fire, flood or natural disaster.

Ohio R.C. 1345.73(A): four thresholds, two persistence clauses Four rows share one window: 1 year from original delivery or the first 18,000 miles, whichever is earlier. (A)(1) needs 3 repairs of substantially the same nonconformity and closes with the words continues to exist or recurs. (A)(2) needs 30 cumulative calendar days out of service, with no persistence requirement stated. (A)(3) needs 8 attempts at any nonconformity, with none stated either. (A)(4) needs 1 attempt at a death or serious injury condition and closes with the same clause as (A)(1). Ohio R.C. 1345.73(A) — four alternatives, one window All four are measured inside 1 year from delivery or the first 18,000 miles, whichever is earlier DIVISION THRESHOLD INSIDE THE WINDOW DEFECT MUST STILL BE THERE? (A)(1) 3 or more repairs, substantially the same defect Yes - continues to exist or recurs (A)(2) 30 or more cumulative calendar days out of service Not stated in the text (A)(3) 8 or more attempts, any nonconformity Not stated in the text (A)(4) 1 or more attempts, death or injury risk Yes - continues to exist or recurs Divisions (A)(1) and (A)(4) close on the same six words. Divisions (A)(2) and (A)(3) stop at the number. Source: Ohio Revised Code 1345.73, text effective September 29, 2011.

What the eight-attempt route drops, and what it quietly keeps

Division (A)(3) is the outlier twice over: it drops the persistence clause and the identity requirement. Where (A)(1) counts repairs of "substantially the same nonconformity", (A)(3) counts attempts to repair "any nonconformity". Eight visits for eight unrelated faults reach the threshold as surely as eight visits for one.

What it keeps is hidden one section earlier, in the definitions. "Nonconformity" is a defined term, and Ohio defines it as "any defect or condition that substantially impairs the use, value, or safety of a motor vehicle to the consumer and does not conform to the express warranty". Each of the eight attempts therefore has to be an attempt at something that clears that bar. A scheduled oil change is not an attempt to repair a nonconformity. The severity screen was not deleted from the eight-attempt route; it sits in the defined term used by (A)(1), (A)(3) and (A)(4), though not by (A)(2), which counts days out of service without naming a nonconformity.

That placement matters for how the older case law reads. When the Supreme Court of Ohio recited the statute in 2001, the eight-attempt alternative was lettered (C) and carried a description of its own: "There have been eight or more attempts to repair any nonconformity that substantially impairs the use and value of the motor vehicle to the consumer". The 2011 rewrite trimmed that tail. The defined term is the broader of the two, reaching use, value or safety rather than use and value together.

What Royster settled about the days route

Supreme Court of Ohio, Royster v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. (2001-Ohio-212), decided June 28, 2001 and reported at 92 Ohio St.3d 327, put the missing-clause question to the days route directly. The syllabus of the court reads: "A consumer enjoys a presumption of recovery under R.C. 1345.73(B) if his or her vehicle is out of service by reason of repair for a cumulative total of thirty or more calendar days in the first year of ownership regardless of whether the vehicle was successfully repaired at some point beyond that thirty-day period."

The days route is division (A)(2) in the current text, but the reasoning attaches to what the provision omits, and the omission survived the renumbering. A repair that finally works on day thirty-five does not unwind a count that already reached thirty. Division (A)(3) is silent in the same way, though Royster was decided on the days route and says nothing about the eight-attempt route, so the parallel is an argument from the statutory text rather than a holding.

What the record has to show

The asymmetry converts into a document list that changes with the route. Under (A)(1) and (A)(4), the file has to carry the defect forward past the last repair: a later invoice, an independent inspection, or a dated written complaint showing the condition continued or came back. Under (A)(2) and (A)(3), the file has to carry the count itself, dated and inside the window.

Three items sit under every route:

  • The date of original delivery, because both limbs of the window run from it and neither runs from the retail installment contract.
  • An odometer reading at each visit, because the mileage limb closes the window at eighteen thousand miles if it arrives first.
  • The complaint as reported, because "nonconformity" is a defined term and the write-up is what shows the visit concerned a defect that substantially impairs use, value or safety.

The Ohio Attorney General, Lemon Laws consumer guidance reaches the same place in plainer language: "Keep all warranty and repair orders. Each order should contain a fully itemized list of repairs, the cost of repairs and the length of time the car was in the shop." The length-of-time element feeds (A)(2). The itemized list lets (A)(1) establish that repeat visits concerned substantially the same nonconformity, and lets (A)(3) accumulate visits that concerned different ones.

One record rule sits outside the counting section and is easy to miss. Ohio Revised Code, Section 1345.72 (Duty to repair) attaches the repair duty to the report rather than to the fix: the manufacturer, its agent or its authorized dealer "shall make any repairs as are necessary to conform the vehicle to such express warranty, notwithstanding the fact that the repairs are made after the expiration of the appropriate time period." A complaint logged on day 360 keeps that duty alive after the window shuts, but it does not extend the counting window in 1345.73(A). A visit in month fourteen can be a covered repair and still sit outside the tally.

Two neighbouring statutes that drafted it the other way

West Virginia writes the same idea with the clause attached. West Virginia Legislature, W. Va. Code §46A-6A-5 (Presumption) provides: "It is presumed that a reasonable number of attempts have been undertaken to conform a new motor vehicle to the applicable express warranties, if the same nonconformity has been subject to repair three or more times by the manufacturer, its agents or its authorized dealers within the express warranty term or during the period of one year following the date of original delivery of the motor vehicle to the consumer, whichever is the earlier date, and the nonconformity continues to exist, or the vehicle is out of service by reason of repair for a cumulative total of thirty or more calendar days during the term or during the one-year period, whichever is the earlier date."

The persistence clause sits on the attempt branch and stops before the "or" that introduces the days branch: the same split Ohio makes, written into one sentence instead of two divisions. West Virginia's safety provision keeps the clause as well, applying if "the nonconformity has been subject to repair at least once by the manufacturer" inside the period "and the nonconformity continues to exist." Its subsection (c) then adds a gate Ohio's counting section lacks, applying the presumption "only if the manufacturer has received prior written notification from or on behalf of the consumer and has had at least one opportunity to cure the defect alleged."

Minnesota sets a higher attempt count and also keeps the clause. Under Minnesota Office of the Revisor of Statutes, Minn. Stat. § 325F.665, subdivision 3, the presumption arises where "the same nonconformity has been subject to repair four or more times" and "the nonconformity continues to exist", or where "the vehicle is out of service by reason of repair for a cumulative total of 30 or more business days". Business days, not calendar days, which stretches the same figure across a longer span. Minnesota's safety provision is narrower in subject matter, reaching a complete failure of the braking or steering system, and asks that the nonconformity have been repaired at least once and continue to exist. Like West Virginia, it conditions the presumption on "prior written notification from or on behalf of the consumer at least once and an opportunity to cure".

The days route declines to ask about the car's present condition; the attempt routes generally do ask. Ohio's eight-attempt route is the exception on the page.

Attempt thresholds in three states, and which ones require a live defect Seven bars measured in repair attempts. Ohio: 3 at the same defect, 8 at any nonconformity, 1 at an injury risk. West Virginia 46A-6A-5: 3 at the same defect, 1 at an injury risk. Minnesota 325F.665 subdivision 3: 4 at the same defect, 1 at a braking or steering failure. The Ohio 8-attempt route is the one bar here whose statute states no persistence requirement; the other six require the nonconformity to continue to exist. Repair attempts needed, and whether the defect must still be there Green = the statute states no persistence requirement. Brown = the defect must continue or recur. Ohio (A)(1) — same defect 3 Ohio (A)(3) — any defect 8 Ohio (A)(4) — injury risk 1 W.Va. 6A-5(a) — same defect 3 W.Va. 6A-5(b) — injury risk 1 Minn. 3(b)(1) — same defect 4 Minn. 3(c) — brakes/steering 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 repair attempts Sources: ORC 1345.73; W. Va. Code 46A-6A-5; Minn. Stat. 325F.665.

Numbers to Re-check

Statute pages are amended. Verify each against the current text:

  • 1 year or 18,000 miles, whichever is earlier — the Ohio counting window in 1345.73(A), measured from original delivery.
  • 3, 30, 8 and 1 — the Ohio thresholds: three repairs of the same nonconformity; thirty cumulative calendar days out of service; eight attempts at any nonconformity; one attempt at a condition likely to cause death or serious bodily injury.
  • 5 years from original delivery — Ohio Revised Code, Section 1345.75 (Civil action) requires that an action "shall be commenced within five years of the date of original delivery of the motor vehicle", and tolls other limitation periods for the span between filing with a qualified informal dispute resolution mechanism and its decision.
  • 12 months or 12,000 miles after resale — the express warranty a manufacturer must carry on a resold buyback, or the remaining original term, whichever is greater.
  • 30 business days — Minnesota's out-of-service figure, not interchangeable with Ohio's thirty calendar days.
  • 4 attempts — Minnesota's same-defect threshold, against the three used by Ohio and West Virginia.
Ohio lemon law: a 12-month counting window inside a 5-year filing window Three bars on a scale of 0 to 60 months from original delivery. The counting window under R.C. 1345.73(A) runs to month 12, or to 18,000 miles if that arrives first. The repair duty under R.C. 1345.72(A) attaches to a report inside that window while the repairs may come later, shown dashed. A civil action under R.C. 1345.75(C) must be commenced within 5 years, or 60 months. A 12-month counting window sitting inside a 5-year filing window Months from the date of original delivery. The mileage limb can close the window early. counting window R.C. 1345.73(A) — attempts and days are counted here 12 months or 18,000 miles R.C. 1345.72(A) — duty attaches to the report, repairs may come later R.C. 1345.75(C) — civil action commenced within 5 years 60 months repairs may be made after the window closes 0 12 24 36 48 60 Sources: Ohio Revised Code 1345.72, 1345.73 and 1345.75.

The route that ends the vehicle's Ohio resale life

The safety route carries a downstream consequence the other three do not. Ohio Revised Code, Section 1345.76 (Resale of a buyback) governs the car afterwards. A buyback may generally be resold or leased in Ohio if the manufacturer carries a fresh express warranty, running for the greater of twelve months or twelve thousand miles from resale or the remaining original term, and gives the buyer a separate written statement in ten-point type and all capital letters, beginning "WARNING: THIS VEHICLE PREVIOUSLY WAS SOLD AS NEW." with each defect on its own line.

Where the vehicle was returned under 1345.72, or a similar law of another state, because of a nonconformity likely to cause death or serious bodily injury if driven, division (B) closes that door: the vehicle may not be sold, leased or operated in this state. The same safety character that makes (A)(4) reachable after a single attempt is what closes the Ohio resale market to the vehicle.

Where This Doesn't Apply

Several things cut against pressing the asymmetry too hard.

A presumption is not a verdict. Reaching a threshold under 1345.73(A) presumes that a reasonable number of attempts were undertaken; it does not by itself establish that a nonconformity existed. Section 1345.75(D) supplies an affirmative defence where the nonconformity "is the result of abuse, neglect, or the unauthorized modification or alteration of a motor vehicle by anyone other than the manufacturer, its agent, or its authorized dealer."

The definition still bites. On (A)(3), each counted attempt has to be an attempt at a nonconformity as defined, and a car that now drives properly can make that harder to demonstrate in practice even where the text does not require present existence.

The presumption is also not the only road in. Section 1345.72(B) speaks of an inability to conform the vehicle "after a reasonable number of repair attempts" without fixing a figure, so falling short of each of the four thresholds is not the end of a claim. It removes a shortcut rather than a remedy.

And a procedural gate may come first. Section 1345.77(B) requires a consumer to resort to a qualifying informal dispute resolution mechanism before asserting a 1345.75 claim, where one exists and the consumer received timely written notification describing how it works. The requirement falls away where no mechanism exists, where the consumer rejects its decision, or where its terms are not promptly implemented.

Where this framework does not apply

The reading above covers four Ohio divisions and two comparison statutes, and it does not transfer automatically.

It does not reach the vehicles Ohio excludes. The statutory definition of "motor vehicle" covers passenger cars and noncommercial motor vehicles, and reaches only those parts of a motor home that fall outside the permanently installed facilities for cold storage, cooking and consuming food, and for sleeping. Mobile homes, recreational vehicles and manufactured homes sit outside it.

It does not reach used vehicles acquired after the original window has closed. Those sit under other provisions, and a resold buyback under the separate warranty term in 1345.76(A)(1).

It does not reach the other forty-nine states, whose windows, thresholds and persistence clauses were drafted independently. The three compared here already diverge on attempt counts, on calendar days against business days, and on whether prior written notice conditions the presumption at all. Nor does it reach federal warranty claims, which run on their own scheme rather than on a state threshold count.

Ohio offers four routes to the same presumption, and the two measuring raw volume — thirty days, eight attempts — ask nothing in their text about whether the car is still broken today.

Two earlier pieces on this site count the same kind of threshold in other states: Florida’s Three Repair Attempts Finish the Count. The Presumption Needs a Mailed Notice Next. and When a Loaner Stops the Clock: Texas Counts Thirty Days Out of Service.

Popular posts from this blog

Four Repair Attempts Create a Presumption in California, Not an Automatic Buyback

A California owner whose new vehicle has been in the shop four times for the same defect is often told the car "qualifies as a lemon." The statute says something narrower. Four repair attempts inside a defined window create a rebuttable presumption that a reasonable number of attempts has been made. A presumption is an evidentiary starting position, not an entitlement to a check. Understanding the difference determines what a repair file has to prove, and it explains why two owners with identical repair histories can end up in very different positions. The window comes first, and it is short Civil Code section 1793.22, the Tanner Consumer Protection Act, opens every one of its thresholds with the same clause: the qualifying events must occur within 18 months from delivery to the buyer or 18,000 miles on the odometer, whichever occurs first . Not 18 months and 18,000 miles. Whichever arrives sooner closes the window. A commuter driving 1,600 miles a month reaches 18,000...
Read more

Texas Lemon Law Deadlines Run on 24,000 Miles, Refunds on One Repair Order Date

Two vehicles can carry identical repair histories and land in different places under Texas law, because Chapter 2301 of the Texas Occupations Code measures its qualifying window from the date of original delivery and closes it on whichever arrives first, the calendar or the odometer. Section 2301.605 supplies the presumption — a rebuttable one, not an entitlement. A rule of the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles, 43 TAC §224.260, supplies the arithmetic, and its output turns on one date most owners never write down: the first report of the defect. What follows reads both, with section numbers and effective dates attached. Three Presumption Tests, One Shared Cutoff Section 2301.605(a) establishes the presumption “that a reasonable number of attempts have been undertaken to conform a motor vehicle to an applicable express warranty” if any of three conditions is met. The first, §2301.605(a)(1), is the four-attempt test: “the same nonconformity continu...
Read more

When Florida Counts 30 Days Out of Service, the 15-Day Letter Comes First

Florida’s motor vehicle warranty chapter does not convert a broken car into a refund on the third failed repair. It builds a presumption, and the presumption is what the state’s arbitration board works from. Section 681.104(3) of the Florida Statutes contains two ways to reach it, and they count different things: one counts repair attempts on a single defect, the other counts days the vehicle sat out of service for any number of defects. Each route carries its own written-notice step, sent by registered or express mail and addressed to the manufacturer rather than to the dealership doing the work. As printed in the 2026 Florida Statutes, section 681.104 closes with a history note whose last entry is s. 4, ch. 97-245, so the thresholds in that section have stood since 1997. Two Routes to the Presumption, and They Count Different Things The presumption is stated once and then splits in two. Section 681.104(3) opens: “It is presumed that a reasonable number of attemp...
Read more