No idea if XPEL applies the film above or below the glass. I'm going to assume that as professionals who have an agreement with Rivian where Rivian is happy enough with whatever XPEL does to the extent that it will not void the Rivian warranty, their methodology will be appropriate, and if not I will get new glass at no cost to me (assuming it cracks before the Rivian warranty expiration
).
UV can be reflected or blocked. Blocked is the same as absorbed.
Yeah, I waded through that entire swamp yesterday prior to calling Rivian, and I agree there are at least three places in the R2 warranty language that give Rivian an out with regard to tinting in general using brandX product installed by nonameinstallerY.I think this is still going to a potential fight. I imagine any cases of this happening will come down to how much the service technician cares and whether Rivian's legal team really wants to get involved. I suspect that unless you have a history of dubious warranty claims, Rivian probably wont bother pushing back if you make a stink about it.
Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, and have also never dealt with Rivian's warranty process, so this is pure speculation.
The problem with the XPEL statement is that it says the film won't void the LVW, but does not affirm that the LVW covers this damage. The following snippets of the LVW itself could be interpreted either way, in my opinion:
(initially suggests damage from a third-party add-on would not be covered (ie not a factory defect).)
(... but is the XPEL product "approved by Rivian" simply by virtue of the partnership?)
(... again implies that cracking due to excess thermal load from an add-on may not be covered because it is not a defect in material or workmanship.)
I could see Rivian arguing that either the sunroof tint was not "approved" (despite being offered by an official partner), or that the heat cracking was due to improper use rather than a defect.
However, you might be able to counter by saying the heat cracked the glass because of a defect, and a non-defective part would not have cracked. This might be reinforced if many people apply tint and don't have issues, then the ones who do could claim there was a hidden defect.
Yes, that's how light works. This material is atually reflecting both UV and IR. My sloppy description aside.
I truly admire your certainty on this! Here's mine: Rivian says in writing that they will not deny coverage involving use of an XPEL product. You either think Rivian is lying or you don't.
I disagree that the statement is so black-and-white. Yes, they say it will not void the "New Vehicle Limited Warranty", but what does that warranty cover? I think there is a very real possibility they tell you to pound sand because the warranty (which is still intact) excludes damage that is not a manufacturing defect. You might have luck arguing that the aftermarket tint simply exacerbated an existing defect and thus should be covered, but that's a risky play IMO.
No, you're just misinterpreting what Rivian is saying. Rivian is saying applying XPEL tint will not void your factory warranty, which is true. However, your factory warranty only covers manufacturing defects. Cracked glass due to tint is not a manufacturing defect.
Two thoughts here.
No, it's too bad so bad for you actually lol.
Yes, they'll look for an impact point and if they find one they'll tell you to contact your insurance. If they don't find one and they see tint on your roof, they have every right to deny your claim bc it's not a manufacturing defect. It cracked bc of the tint and thermal stress, not bc Rivian manufactured something wrong.
Double-no, you are misinterpreting the most basic rules of logic. If the glass cracked due to tint and the tint was an XPEL-installed XPEL product, then the glass was cracked by an XPEL-installed XPEL product, which Rivian has stated will not void the warranty.
