|
Search
Search through the thousands of lawsuits, complaints and recalls on our site.
 |
Case ID: 4592 | Automotive | 02/27/2006
A California statewide notice program authorized by California's Sacramento County Superior Court began to issue notices to those who bought, owned or leased 1991-2001 model year Ford Explorers. The notices are a result of the Court establishing or "certifying," in February 2005, a class action lawsuit against Ford Motor Company, about whether Ford concealed a design flaw that increased rollover risk and lowered Explorer values.
The lawsuit includes California residents, including person and entities, who bought, owned, or leased, new or used 1991-2001 model year Ford Explorers in California between 1990 and August 9, 2000, and who either still own their Explorer or who sold, ended their lease, or otherwise disposed of it after August 9, 2000. This is not a recall or a case about personal injuries or wrongful deaths. Instead, the lawsuit claims that Ford concealed what it knew about a dangerous design flaw that increases the Explorer's tendency to roll over, thereby misleading California consumers to buy or lease Explorers, and to pay more than what they should have. The lawsuit seeks money or benefits for the Class. Ford denies that the Explorers at issue are defective and asserts that the unique handling characteristics of sport utility vehicles ("SUVs") were fully disclosed by it through product literature and government-mandated warnings. Ford notes that Plaintiffs do not claim that the Explorers are more likely to roll over than other comparable SUVs. The Court has not decided whether the Class or Ford is right. A trial is scheduled to begin on September 25, 2006 at which the lawyers for the Class will have to prove their claims. Those who wish to remain members of the Class don't have to do anything at this time and will be informed about any claims process that results from the trial or any proposed settlement. Class members will be bound by all orders and judgments of the Court. At Lawcash.com, it is our goal to keep you informed about important legal cases, class actions and settlements. Our lawyers offer free legal evaluations in tort cases, class actions, personal injury, and other lawsuits because we are dedicated to helping you resolve your legal complaints. Other Automotive Cases of Interest GM is going to cut off 10% — roughly 500,000 — of its OnStar users because the system is upgrading to digital equipment as of Jan. 1, 2008. U.S. District Court Judge Arthur Tarnow granted class action status to a lawsuit filed by Ford UAW retirees. The lawsuit seeks to approve the landmark health care deal that the union and automaker approved by a razor-thin margin late last year. Under the agreement, retired autoworkers would start paying monthly contributions, annual deductibles and co-payments for some medical services up to a maximum of $370 a year for individuals and $752 for a family. Currently these fees are not paid by employees. The theory of diminished value asserts that buyers choosing between two otherwise equal vehicles will select one that has not been previously damaged and repaired, even where the repairs to the other vehicle were first-rate. The parties have reached a tentative $1.725 million settlement in an action filed against Southern General Insurance Company on behalf all persons insured under an automobile insurance policy issued in Georgia by the company who made a claim for damage to their vehicle under their collision or comprehensive coverage for a loss that occurred between June 12, 1997, and February 13, 2002, or under their uninsured motorist coverage for a loss that occurred between June 12, 1999, and February 13, 2002. Though there is no claims deadline at this time, persons eligible to take part in the settlement who have not received a notification letter should act as soon as possible to alert the company of their eligibility.
Philadelphia Common Pleas Judge Mark I. Bernstein rejected a proposed settlement of a tentative class action stemming from the recall of roughly 162,000 Isuzu SUVs due to defective brake systems.
In his recent nine-page order in Parker v. American Isuzu Motors Inc., Bernstein argued that certain requirements of the proposed settlement -- such as that class members would need to produce a police report that supported their claim in order to receive compensation -- might cause plaintiffs undue difficulty.
A group of 140 plaintiffs is suing Ford, GM, Wal-Mart, Sam's Club, AutoZone, and Advance Auto Parts. The plaintiffs are seeking a court ruling to be able to use the "product lines" they purchased as their proof of the required "product markets" in their antitrust suit for illegal price discrimination brought under the 1936 Federal Robinson-Patman Act. A class action has been filed against the Washington state Department of Licensing on behalf of state drivers whose licenses were suspended through the mail, who allege that their right to due process of law has been violated since they have no opportunity to contest potential errors. The action seeks unspecified compensatory damages. |
IT'S FREE
|
© 2000 - 2008 Copyright. All rights reserved nola3, llc.
