FL findlemonlaw.com
Massachusetts · Article Updated May 24, 2026

The Manufacturer Denied My Massachusetts Lemon Law Claim — Now What?

What to do when the manufacturer denies your claim — proceed to OCABR arbitration or court action with c. 93A § 9(3) demand letter.

Manufacturer denial is common and does NOT end your case. Massachusetts provides multiple paths after denial — including the powerful c. 93A § 9(3) demand-letter framework.

Common denial reasons

  • “Not a covered defect.”
  • “Defect cannot be reproduced.”
  • “Outside warranty.”
  • “Owner caused / modified.”
  • “Not enough repair attempts.”

Each denial can be challenged with evidence.

Step 1 — Document the denial

  • Save the denial letter / email.
  • Note the denial reasons.
  • Note the customer-relations case number.
  • Note the date and contact person.

Step 2 — Verify your thresholds

Confirm you’ve met § 7N½ thresholds:

  • 3 attempts on same nonconformity, OR
  • 15 business days cumulative OOS.

Plus written notice with final repair opportunity within the 1-year / 15,000-mile window.

Step 3 — Send the c. 93A § 9(3) demand letter

If you intend to pursue court action, serve the mandatory § 9(3) demand letter at least 30 days before filing. This creates structural pressure:

  • Manufacturer has 30 days to tender a written settlement.
  • Inadequate tender or no tender triggers mandatory double/treble damages plus mandatory § 9(4) fees.

The § 9(3) demand letter often triggers settlement even after initial denial.

Step 4 — File OCABR arbitration

In parallel with (or instead of) court action:

  • $50 filing fee.
  • Manufacturer required to participate.
  • 45-90 day timeline.
  • Decision binding on manufacturer if accepted.

Step 5 — File court action

For cases with c. 93A willfulness:

  • Massachusetts Superior Court or D. Mass.
  • Parallel c. 93A + Magnuson-Moss + Lemon Law claims.
  • Mandatory § 9(4) fees on prevailing.
  • Double or treble damages on willful/knowing or inadequate tender.

Step 6 — Get an attorney

For court action with c. 93A, attorney representation is essentially free (fees come from manufacturer). Free case review.

Bottom line

Denial is a procedural step, not the end of the case. The c. 93A § 9(3) demand-letter framework typically resolves denials by triggering manufacturer settlement — and where it doesn’t, the consequences of inadequate tender (mandatory doubling/trebling plus § 9(4) fees) make court action attractive.

Related

Think you've got a lemon?

Compare your situation to your state's requirements — and connect with a vetted lemon-law attorney for a free case review.