Fraser Engines Lawsuit: Lancaster Case, 2023 Ruling & Warranty

The main Fraser Engines lawsuit is Fraser Engine Rebuilder Inc. v. Lancaster, a Michigan case against a former marketing contractor that produced a 2023 appellate ruling narrowing the economic loss doctrine. Separately, the company faces a steady stream of consumer complaints and warranty disputes that are more likely to matter to someone thinking about buying an engine or transmission from Fraser.

The Lancaster Case

Fraser Engine Rebuilder, Inc. and a related entity, Engine & Transmissions Incorporated (E&T), signed marketing services agreements with Lancaster Advertising & Marketing, Inc. (LAM) and MPO, Inc. starting in August 2014, with further agreements in January 2016. In 2017, Fraser and E&T sued in Macomb Circuit Court, alleging LAM and MPO had failed to deliver services, diverted sales leads to a competitor, and launched a competing business called “Discount Powertrain” in March 2017. That case was administratively closed in early April 2019 after a bankruptcy stay.¹

Fraser then filed a new action against Kenneth Allen Lancaster and Carol Lancaster individually, adding tort claims for fraudulent inducement, statutory conversion, misappropriation of trade secrets, and conversion tied to unauthorized credit card use. The trial court dismissed the tort claims on summary disposition, holding that the economic loss doctrine barred them because they arose from a contractual relationship. Kenneth Lancaster represented himself.²

What The 2023 Appellate Ruling Decided

On June 8, 2023, a three-judge panel of the Michigan Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal in an unpublished per curiam opinion. The court held that the economic loss doctrine does not apply to service contracts under Michigan law, so a marketing-services agreement cannot serve as a blanket bar against tort claims. The panel also ruled that the credit card conversion claim was “entirely extraneous” to the contract and could not be blocked by the doctrine regardless.²

The case was remanded with instructions for the trial court to apply a separate-and-distinct-duty analysis, evaluating whether the alleged conduct was malfeasance rather than nonfeasance, and whether the duties involved existed independently of the contract.² For a prospective Fraser customer, the ruling is a Michigan tort-law development, not a finding about Fraser’s products.

Consumer Complaints Against Fraser

Fraser is not accredited by the Better Business Bureau. As of mid-2026, its BBB profile shows an average customer review rating of 1.47 out of 5 stars across 51 reviews.³ The profile lists 50 complaints filed in the last three years, with 16 closed in the most recent 12-month period. Of those 50, 38 are marked “Answered” and 12 “Resolved,” meaning roughly a quarter were confirmed by the complainant as satisfactorily addressed.⁴

The complaints cluster around a few recurring issues:

Engines and transmissions arriving with mechanical failures, including seized lifters, timing problems, internal rust, low compression, leaking gaskets, and misaligned components. Some users on automotive forums report engine failure within months of installation.⁴⁵
Warranty disputes, including allegations that the company delays claims or imposes conditions that were not clearly communicated at the time of sale, such as demanding professional service receipts for routine maintenance the buyer performed.³
Hostile customer service interactions, with reviewers alleging they were hung up on or blocked from further communication after raising complaints.³
“Bait and switch” pricing allegations, where advertised free shipping, waived core charges, or specific warranty terms were not honored at the transaction.³
Customer frustration on learning their unit was sourced from a third-party remanufacturer rather than rebuilt in-house by Fraser.³

Automotive forum reviews track the same themes. On the F150 Forum, users describe the warranty process as a “nightmare,” reporting that the company blamed the installing mechanic for defects, required extensive diagnostic work to validate claims, and only responded after outside pressure such as a BBB complaint.⁵

Fraser’s Response

In public responses, Fraser disputes the accuracy of negative accounts, calling them “inconsistent with our records, policies, and standard operating procedures.”³ The company cites a “zero-tolerance policy” for abusive conduct and says employees are instructed to disengage from callers who use profanity or behave aggressively. It says warranty claims are strictly governed by documented procedures requiring a licensed automotive repair facility, and attributes many product failures to unqualified installers or a customer’s failure to follow break-in procedures.⁶

Fraser has acknowledged that some units are produced by third-party remanufacturers, calling this a standard industry practice and describing those sources as “trusted and vetted.”⁶ The company characterizes the BBB as a platform that primarily attracts dissatisfied customers, arguing that positive experiences are underrepresented. Its responses frequently reference a claimed BBB “A+ rating,” even though the BBB profile lists the business as not accredited.³

Warranty Terms That Trigger Disputes

Standard remanufactured gasoline engines under 11,000 pounds gross vehicle weight carry a base warranty of three to four years with unlimited mileage. Diesel and high-performance engines get 12 months or 12,000 miles. Automatic transmissions for non-fleet vehicles are covered for three years with unlimited mileage under the standard plan.⁷ Optional “No-Fault” plans priced from $249 to $599 extend coverage and add a one-time free replacement regardless of cause. The top-tier “Fraser Elite Pro” plan adds labor reimbursement up to $1,100 plus rental and towing allowances.⁸

The conditions attached to the warranty are the flashpoint in most disputes. Buyers must register the product online within 30 days of purchase. Repairs must be performed by a licensed automotive repair facility and authorized by Fraser before work begins. Maintenance must be documented every 3,000 miles or three months. Coverage is voided by engine overheating, unauthorized modifications, failure to return the core within 30 days, or use in racing or competition.⁷ Units sourced from Fraser’s vendor network can carry different terms, with some import engines covered for only one year or 12,000 miles.⁸ If you install the engine yourself, service it yourself, or miss a documentation window, the warranty Fraser advertises may not be the warranty you can actually claim.

Who Fraser Is

Fraser Engine Rebuilder, Inc. is a Michigan corporation headquartered in Shelby Township, Michigan.⁹ The company describes itself as family-owned and founded in 1961, and operates under several trade names, including Fraser Engine Manufacturers, Fraser Engines & Transmissions, and Fraser Powertrain Direct.³

1
CaseMine. Fraser Engine Rebuilder Inc v Lancaster
2
Michigan Lawyers Weekly. Tort Economic Loss Doctrine Service Contract
3
BBB. Fraser Engine Manufacturers Customer Reviews
4
BBB. Fraser Engine Manufacturers Complaints
5
F150 Forum. Fraser Powertrain Direct Engine Review
6
BBB. Fraser Engine Manufacturers Customer Reviews Page 2
7
Fraser Engine Co. Warranty Information
8
Fraser Engine Co. Fraser Engines Warranty Documents
9
Fraser Engine Co. Terms and Agreement