In his order, Judge Drain highlighted evidence that Ford was aware of the alleged defect earlier than it contends, and that Ford knew a 2016 “fix” did not resolve the brake failure issue. Judge Drain found that Ford’s bid for summary judgment ignored its own engineer’s testimony admitting that the 2016 recall did not result in a permanent solution, and that the automaker failed to remedy the actual defect until years later, in 2019.

The putative class action lawsuit was filed by Lieff Cabraser and co-counsel after the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration received more than 200 complaints from Ford F-150 drivers who said the trucks’ brakes suddenly failed without warning during normal driving.

Drivers allege the brake pedals suddenly push all the way to the floor without engaging the braking system, and many have described the problem as leading to a complete and total brake failure that occurred while the vehicles were in motion. Drivers also noted that the issue can occur repeatedly, and the complaints include F-150 truck brakes that can suffer total failure after as few as 26,000 miles on the road. NHTSA received complaints from F-150 owners and drivers in 38 U.S. states.

Learn more about the Ford F-150 Pickup Truck Brake Failure litigation.

Read the full article on Law360’s website (subscription).

The proposed settlement class includes all persons (individuals, businesses and organizations) who, at any time on or before GM’s announcement of the 2014 recalls, owned, purchased, or leased a vehicle subject to any of the recalls in the United States, or its territories and/or possessions. Daily rental fleet businesses, governmental entities and certain other persons are not included in the class. Go to www.GMIgnitionSwitchEconomicSettlement.com, or call 1-877-545-0241, to see if your GM vehicle is covered by the settlement.

If approved, the settlement fund will be $121.1 million. Payment amounts to eligible class members will vary depending on which recall applied to their vehicle, settlement implementation costs, and the number of class members who file claims.

For details about the settlement, including the money that may be available to class members, and your eligibility to file a claim and receive a payment, review the Long Form Notice and the Amended Settlement Agreement available at www.GMIgnitionSwitchEconomicSettlement.com. All claims must be submitted online or by mail before the deadline which will be posted on the website, which will be no earlier than March 18, 2021.

Class members have other options too. The settlement will not include the release of any claims for personal injury, wrongful death or actual physical injury. However, if you want to keep your right to sue New GM, the GUC Trust and other parties about the economic loss claims, you must exclude yourself from the class. If you exclude yourself, you cannot receive benefits provided by the settlement. Your exclusion request must be postmarked by October 19, 2020. IF YOU DO NOT EXCLUDE YOURSELF AND THE SETTLEMENT IS APPROVED, YOU WILL BE BOUND BY THE RELEASE, WAIVER AND COVENANT NOT TO SUE. If you stay in the class, you may object to the settlement – that is, tell the District Court why you don’t like the settlement. Your objection must be filed or postmarked by October 19, 2020. Information about how to exclude yourself or object to the settlement is available on the Settlement Website. The District Court will hold a hearing on December 18, 2020 at 9:30 a.m. eastern to consider whether to approve both the settlement and attorneys’ fees and expenses (up to a maximum of $34.5 million). The attorneys’ fees and expenses will not be deducted from the settlement fund. You may appear at the hearing, either yourself or through an attorney hired by you, but you do not have to. For more information call 1-877-545-0241 or visit www.GMIgnitionSwitchEconomicSettlement.com.

GM will contribute up to $70 million into a common fund for the drivers, and the trust that was formed after the company’s historic 2009 bankruptcy will contribute up to $50 million. The settlement comes after years of ongoing litigation and dispute over allegations that the automaker knowingly sold faulty and dangerous vehicles before, during, and after its bankruptcy filing.

GM had previously paid over $1 billion to resolve a separate series of civil and criminal cases arising from the ignition-switch defect, including cases filed over the more than 100 deaths attributed to the design flaw. In 2014, GM issued a massive recall of the affected vehicles and in June of that year the economic loss litigation was consolidated into an MDL.

The new $120 million settlement is subject to approval from U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman of the Southern District of New York, who oversees both the MDL and the related bankruptcy court proceedings.

Learn more about the GM ignition defects and injuries lawsuits.

Contact a Vehicle Injury and Defect Lawyer at Lieff Cabraser

Automakers have a legal duty to produce cars that are safe, and promptly correct any known safety defects. The personal injury lawyers at Lieff Cabraser who focus on vehicle defect cases represent individuals and classes of owners and lessees harmed by unsafe and dangerous cars, SUVs, and trucks in lawsuits filed nationwide.

 If you or a family member have been injured in an accident linked to a faulty GM ignition key or switch, please contact Lieff Cabraser for a free, prompt and confidential evaluation of your case using the contact form on this page. You can also call us toll-free at 1 800 541-7358 and ask to speak with auto accident attorney Fabrice N. Vincent.

On April 29, 2019, Lieff Cabraser and Baron & Budd filed a class action lawsuit in federal court in California on behalf of consumers across the U.S. against Hyundai Motor America, Kia Motor America, and ZF-TRW Automotive Holding Corp. over defective vehicle airbags that fail to operate during crashes due to electrical overstress (“EOS”). As detailed in the Complaint, a defect in the application-specific integrated circuit (“ASIC”) built into the airbags causes a failure in the Airbag Control Unit that prevents the airbags and the seat belt pretensioners, both vital to maximizing safety in a vehicle crash, from deploying. As the Complaint further alleges, ZF-TRW, Hyundai, and Kia became aware of the ACU defect as early as 2011, but did nothing to protect consumers or warn of the product dangers until 2018.

As the Complaint states, “From 2011 through 2015, ZF-TRW, Hyundai, and Kia investigated airbag non-deployments in several Kia and Hyundai vehicles but failed to inform NHTSA that there was an issue until the end of 2015. Even after advising NHTSA in 2015, each of these companies downplayed the severity and frequency of these non-deployment crashes. It was not until February and June of 2018 that Hyundai and Kia, respectively, issued product recalls as to a small segment of their vehicles.”

Throughout this nearly decade-long period, unsuspecting U.S. consumers purchased vehicles with defective ACUs which create a dangerous condition that gives rise to a clear, substantial, and unreasonable danger of personal injury, indisputably posing a grave and wholly unnecessary safety risk.
As the Complaint notes, “ZF-TRW, Hyundai, and Kia put profits ahead of safety by continuing to equip vehicles with ACUs year after year, even though they knew or should have known those ACUs were defective. Despite the number of airbag failures, injuries, and deaths caused by the ASIC Defect, ZF-TRW, Hyundai, and Kia were slow to fully investigate the problem and slow to report the danger to drivers and passengers of all ACU equipped vehicles. Only after several deaths, injuries, and investigations did Hyundai and Kia choose to recall a fraction of their vehicles equipped with the ASIC Defect.”

“This is not just fraud but also an astonishing breach of the public trust,” notes Lieff Cabraser partner David Stellings, one of the lawyers who filed the class action lawsuit. “Airbags and seat belts exist for only one reason: to protect passengers from being hurt in a crash. The defective ZF-TRW airbag and seatbelt system Hyundai and Kia installed in their cars do exactly the opposite – they stop working when the car crashes. Millions of drivers and passengers are at risk of being injured or killed.”

The Complaint notes that as a result of this misconduct, Plaintiffs and members of the proposed Classes were harmed and suffered actual damages; they did not receive the benefit of their bargain, and instead purchased or leased vehicles that are of a lesser standard, grade, and quality than represented, and did not receive vehicles that met ordinary and reasonable consumer expectations regarding safe and reliable operation. Purchasers or lessees of the affected vehicles paid more, either through a higher purchase price or higher lease payments, than they would have had the ASIC defect been disclosed. Plaintiffs and the Classes were deprived of having a safe, defect-free airbag installed in their vehicles, and ZF-TRW, Hyundai, and Kia unjustly benefited from their unconscionable delay in recalling its defective products, as they avoided incurring the costs associated with recalls and installing replacement parts for years.

Vehicles in the Lawsuit

“Class Vehicles” refers to the Kia Forte 2013; Kia Forte Koup 2013; Kia Optima 2013-2019; Kia Optima Hybrid 2012-2016; Kia Sedona 2014; Hyundai Sonata 2013-2019; and Hyundai Sonata Hybrid 2013-2019. (The defective ZF-TRW airbags were also supplied to other vehicle manufacturers, including Toyota/Acura, Honda, FiatChrysler/Dodge/Ram/Jeep, and Mitsubishi.)

The class action lawsuit states claims that include fraud, fraudulent concealment, violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, unjust enrichment, violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act for Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability, and violation of the California Unfair Competition Law. The lawsuit seeks class certification as well as remedies in the form of an order enjoining Hyundai and Kia from further deceptive distribution, sales, and lease practices with respect to the affected vehicles, an award to plaintiffs and the class members of compensatory, exemplary, and punitive damages, and an award for the return of the purchase price of the affected vehicles.

About Lieff Cabraser

Recognized as “one of the nation’s premier plaintiffs’ firms” by The American Lawyer, Lieff Cabraser is a national plaintiffs’ law firm with offices in San Francisco, New York, and Nashville. We have successfully prosecuted scores of product defect class action lawsuits against many of the largest U.S. manufacturers and corporations. Working with co-counsel, we have achieved judgments and settlements in these cases in excess of $19 billion for consumers.

About Baron & Budd

Established more than four decades ago to fight for workers injured by asbestos, Baron & Budd has expanded to confront not only the asbestos industry but also other societal threats such as water contamination, unsafe pharmaceutical drugs and devices, financial industry fraud, and automobile recalls. Baron & Budd has been named repeatedly to “The Plaintiffs’ Hot List” of exemplary plaintiffs’ firms in the United States by The National Law Journal. Legal 500 has repeatedly honored Baron & Budd for being one of the top two law firms in the U.S. for toxic tort claims.

Source/Contact

Nimish Desai
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP
ndesai@lchb.com
415 956-1000

The new settlement proposal comes after years of ongoing litigation and dispute over allegations that the automaker knowingly sold faulty vehicles before, during, and after its historic 2009 bankruptcy.

Past court documents revealed that General Motors could have fixed its defective ignition switches in 2002 for as little as 57 cents per vehicle. If approved, the new deal could cost New GM $1 billion in stock and would require the trust to accept additional claims whose legitimacy it has been fighting for years.

With the additional claims, the total amount of unsecured claims against Old GM would come out to more than $35 billion. This would force New GM, under a Chapter 11 creditor payout, to sell 10 million shares of common stock to pay the claimants.

Learn more about the GM ignition defects and injuries lawsuits.

Legal Rights of Those Injured by Defective Cars

Automakers have a legal duty to produce cars that are safe, and promptly correct any known safety defects. Damages in personal injury lawsuits against auto manufacturers for selling defective vehicles with safety flaws include damages for:

• Past and future physical pain and suffering, mental anguish and physical impairment;
• Past and future medical, incidental and hospital expenses;
• Past and future loss of earnings and earning capacity; and
• Punitive damages in cases of egregious misconduct.

If the driver or occupant was killed, surviving families members may file a wrongful death lawsuit.

Contact Lieff Cabraser

Lieff Cabraser has successfully represented persons across the United States injured in car accidents due to safety defects in the vehicle.

If you or a family member have been injured in an accident linked to a faulty GM ignition key or switch, please contact Lieff Cabraser for a prompt and confidential evaluation of your case. You can also call us toll-free at 1 800 541-7358 and ask to speak with auto accident attorney Fabrice N. Vincent.

The ruling follows twenty years of ongoing litigation between the class of plaintiffs and State Farm that began with a class action lawsuit filed against the company in 1997, accusing State Farm of deceptively using aftermarket parts to repair customer’s vehicles that were of poorer quality than those promised in the customers’ insurance policies. After a jury trial, the class of nearly five million consumers was awarded over $1 billion in damages.

The Illinois Supreme Court later threw out the judgment after a vote took place in which newly elected Justice Lloyd Karmeier sided with State Farm. Soon afterward, the class filed a separate RICO lawsuit against the company, claiming State Farm had given millions of dollars in campaign contributions to Karmeier through middlemen in hopes of getting him elected to secure his vote against the judgment.

Read the full article on Law360’s site (subscription).

While the case was pending in the Illinois Supreme Court, a vacancy opened on the Court and State Farm sought to fill that seat with a justice sympathetic to its views. State Farm’s preferred candidate, Lloyd Karmeier, then a little-known trial judge, was ultimately elected in a very costly race. It emerged that State Farm funneled upwards of $3.5 million to the Karmeier campaign, sending the funds to other entities such as the US Chamber of Commerce, which then forwarded the monies to the Karmeier campaign. Plaintiffs sought to recuse Justice Karmeier from hearing the case, and, in response, State Farm denied that it gave Justice Karmeier monies either directly or indirectly. Justice Karmeier did not recuse himself and, according to a timeline his office prepared, he “broke the deadlock” at the Supreme Court, reversing the $1 billion dollar judgment against State Farm.

In 2012, Plaintiffs filed a new complaint alleging a RICO conspiracy, that State Farm selected Karmeier to run for the seat and funneled monies to his campaign in such a way that it could later deny that it had done so, used the mails to advance its fraudulent scheme, and ultimately succeeded in having the Supreme Court overturn the judgment. It took years for Plaintiffs to fully understand the money trail and develop its case for trial.

The case involved three trips to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, rulings on class certification, two summary judgment motions, dozens of motions in limine and Rule 702 motions, the production and review of hundreds of thousands of pages of documents, upwards of 100 depositions, and only settled, on September 4, 2018, after the jury had been empanelled. The case settled for $250 million. Had the negotiations not proven successful, and had the Court not granted preliminary approval to the settlement that same day, the jury would have returned the following day to begin hearing testimony.

The recalled defective Takata airbags contain a dangerous propellant that can degrade over time and cause the airbags to explode, shooting metal debris towards drivers and passengers. At least 20 people have died worldwide and over 280 have been hurt from explosions in the faulty airbags. 19 automakers have recalled well over 69 million inflators in 42 million vehicles, making this automotive recall the largest in U.S. history.

The settlement will provide compensation to consumers for their losses – this includes reimbursement of reasonable out-of-pocket expenses or up to a $500 payment for those who don’t have any documentation of those out-of-pocket expenses. Ford will also provide rental cars while consumers wait for the airbag recall repairs.

“Under the terms of the deal, Ford will inform affected consumers about the recall of cars with the defective air bags using a state-of-the-art outreach program that regularly contacts class members through direct mail, phone calls, email, internet ads, social media and in-person canvassing, according to the plaintiffs,” reports Law360.

Ford is the seventh automaker to reach a settlement in the Takata MDL, after Honda agreed last September to a $605 million deal, Nissan settled for $98 million the preceding August, and Toyota, Subaru, Mazda and BMW agreed to pay a combined $553.6 million in May 2017. Total value across all seven Takata settlements has reached over $1.5 billion. This latest settlement is pending final approval from district court, and more information will be forthcoming.

The MDL is In re: Takata Airbag Products Liability Litigation, case number 1:15-md-02599, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

Takata Airbag Recall Lawsuit & Your Legal Rights

Automakers have a legal duty to produce cars and components that are safe, and promptly correct any known safety defects. Lieff Cabraser represents drivers across the U.S. harmed by these air bag defects in lawsuits against Takata. Nearly 42 million vehicles, most manufactured prior to 2009, have been recalled worldwide due to the problem. This is the largest automotive recall to date in U.S. history. These airbags were installed in U.S. and foreign made cars and pickup trucks including in vehicles made by Mercedes-Benz, Ford, GM, Chrysler, Honda, Nissan, Mazda, and BMW, among others.

Owners and lessees of these vehicles are welcome to contact Lieff Cabraser about safety concerns and their legal rights.

Click here to review the list of recalled vehicles with Takata airbags.