{"count":1,"message":"Results returned successfully","results":[{"odiNumber":11744433,"manufacturer":"Chrysler (FCA US, LLC)","crash":false,"fire":false,"numberOfInjuries":0,"numberOfDeaths":0,"dateOfIncident":"05/12/2026","dateComplaintFiled":"06/16/2026","vin":"2C4rc1n70hr","components":"POWER TRAIN,ELECTRICAL SYSTEM,FUEL/PROPULSION SYSTEM","summary":"My 2017 Chrysler Pacifica Hybrid entered limp mode and was taken to Central Florida Chrysler Dodge on XXX.   The service advisor, [XXX], identified three recalls, which needed to be completed, after claiming they had completed them, the issue persisted. I authorized a coolant flush without being informed it involved the battery cooling system. Further diagnostics revealed a failed hybrid battery. However, Chrysler denied the battery replacement claim, citing contamination from \u201cincorrect\u201d coolant. I dispute this reasoning, as I was not properly informed about the coolant issue and believe there is no proof that it caused the battery failure. Under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, a warranty or recall claim cannot be denied without clear evidence linking the fluid to the failure. I have opened a case with Chrysler (Case #XXX) and am requesting that the battery replacement be honored under the recall, especially since recall guidelines indicate that unresolved issues after software updates may require component replacement. After a days of back and forth, not the dealership claims the PIM is not the original part of the vehicle and for that reason it would be covered under warranty. However the law is clear and Chrysler is obligated to replace it since this part is also part of the recall they claimed was completed. Now the dealer wants US$ 5K to replace the PIM. I need NHTSA to intervene please. INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)","products":[{"type":"Vehicle","productYear":"2017","productMake":"CHRYSLER","productModel":"PACIFICA","manufacturer":"Chrysler (FCA US, LLC)"}]}]}