{"count":1,"message":"Results returned successfully","results":[{"odiNumber":10107575,"manufacturer":"Chrysler (FCA US, LLC)","crash":false,"fire":false,"numberOfInjuries":0,"numberOfDeaths":0,"dateOfIncident":"10/10/2001","dateComplaintFiled":"01/19/2005","vin":"1B48S28Y1XF","components":"SUSPENSION","summary":"WE PURCHASED A BRAND NEW 1999 DODGE DURANGO IN OCTOBER 1998. IN NOVEMBER 2001 WHILE THE VEHICLE WAS BEING SERVICED THE TECHNICIAN INFORMED ME THAT THE BALL JOINTS WERE BAD AND WOULD HAVE TO BE REPLACED. THE VEHICLE WAS JUST OUT OF WARRANTY SO I HAD AN OUT OF POCKET EXPENSE OF $964.00. THE TECHNICIAN SAID THAT NOT TO REPLACE THE BALL JOINTS AT THAT TIME WOULD MAKE THE VEHICLE UNSAFE, THEREFORE I HAD LITTLE CHOICE BUT TO SPEND THE MONEY. SHORTLY AFTER THAT NEWS OF DURANGOS HAVING  DEFECTIVE BALL JOINTS BEGAN SURFACE. THESE REPORTED INCIDENTS LEAD TO A RECALL INVOLVING DURANGOS BEGINNING IN 2000. WE BELIEVE THAT THE RECALL SHOULD INVOLVE ALL DODGE DURANGOS. THE FACT THAT THE MODELS PREVIOUS TO 2000 WERE USING THE SAME DEFECTIVE BALL JOINTS IS APPARENT BY WHAT HAPPENED TO US. THE FACT THAT WE HAD NO SERIOUS INCIDENTS IS DUE TO AN ALERT SERVICE TECHNICIAN AND THE GRACE OF GOD. THERE IS NO REASON DODGE SHOULD NOT REPLACE THE BALL JOINTS IN PREVIOUS MODELS OF DURANGOS OR REFUND THE EXPENSES OF THOSE WHO SOUGHT TO PROTECT THEIR FAMILIES BY REPLACING THE FAULTY PARTS.   WE HAVE PROOF OF EXPENSES. WE CONTACTED DODGE AND THEY STATED THAT BECAUSE OUR VEHICLE WASN'T COVERED BY THE OFFICIAL RECALL THAT THEY HAD NO OBLIGATION TO RECTIFY OUR LOSSES.    *NM","products":[{"type":"Vehicle","productYear":"1999","productMake":"DODGE","productModel":"DURANGO","manufacturer":"Chrysler (FCA US, LLC)"}]}]}