In this week’s Suits & Settlements, you’ll find the following reports:
Lawsuit Says Ford Should Share Tariff Refund With Buyers. Ford Motor Company is facing a proposed class-action lawsuit alleging the automaker should return a portion of an anticipated $1.3 billion tariff refund to customers who paid higher vehicle prices after Ford increased prices to offset import duties, according to court filings. The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Michigan by a California Mustang Mach-E owner, claims Ford raised prices and destination charges on certain imported vehicles to recover tariff costs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). After the U.S. Supreme Court ruled those tariffs unlawful earlier this year, the plaintiff alleges Ford now stands to receive a substantial government refund while customers who paid tariff-related price increases receive nothing. The complaint contends allowing Ford to retain both the consumer-paid price increases and the government refund would result in unjust enrichment and seeks class-action status on behalf of similarly situated buyers. Ford said it is reviewing the lawsuit but has not commented on the merits of the allegations. The case is one of a growing number of consumer lawsuits filed against companies seeking tariff refunds after the Supreme Court's decision invalidating the IEEPA tariffs, raising new legal questions over whether businesses that passed tariff costs on to consumers have any obligation to share subsequent government refunds.
Widow Sues GM Over Fatal Chevy Traverse Crash. General Motors is facing a wrongful-death lawsuit alleging a 2016 Chevrolet Traverse was defectively designed because it lacked automatic emergency braking, according to a complaint reported by GM Authority. The lawsuit was filed by the widow of a driver who was killed in a crash involving the Traverse and claims the vehicle was unreasonably dangerous because the safety technology was not included, even though similar crash-avoidance systems were becoming increasingly available in the industry at the time. The complaint alleges the absence of automatic emergency braking contributed to the fatal collision and that GM should have equipped the vehicle with the technology or adequately warned consumers of the alleged safety risk. The plaintiff is seeking damages under wrongful-death and product liability claims. General Motors has not publicly responded to the allegations, and the lawsuit remains in its early stages. The case reflects a growing trend in automotive product-liability litigation in which plaintiffs argue that automakers should have equipped vehicles with advanced driver-assistance features that, while not federally required at the time of manufacture, were available elsewhere in the marketplace. The court has not ruled on the merits of the claims, and GM has not been found liable.
Mercedes Wins Dismissal of Shattering Sunroof Lawsuit. Mercedes-Benz USA has won dismissal of a proposed class-action lawsuit alleging certain vehicles were equipped with panoramic sunroofs that could spontaneously shatter, according to Law360. The lawsuit claimed the automaker sold vehicles with defective panoramic glass roofs that could unexpectedly break without warning, creating potential safety hazards for occupants. However, a Georgia federal judge dismissed the case with prejudice after finding the plaintiffs failed to produce sufficient evidence that Mercedes-Benz caused the alleged manufacturing defect. The court concluded the plaintiffs had not established a plausible link between the shattered sunroofs and any defect attributable to the automaker, effectively ending the case in federal court. The ruling does not determine that spontaneous sunroof breakage never occurs, only that the plaintiffs failed to present enough evidence to support their claims against Mercedes. Mercedes denied the allegations throughout the litigation. The decision marks another example of the high evidentiary burden plaintiffs face in automotive defect class actions, particularly when attempting to prove that isolated component failures stem from a common manufacturing or design defect rather than unrelated causes.
FCA Wins Dismissal of Warranty Extension Lawsuit. Stellantis subsidiary FCA US has won dismissal of a proposed class-action lawsuit alleging the automaker failed to extend vehicle warranties to account for time owners' vehicles spent in dealerships undergoing covered warranty repairs, according to Law360. The plaintiffs claimed warranty periods should have been extended to compensate for days or weeks vehicles were unavailable while repairs were being completed, arguing owners lost valuable warranty coverage during that time. However, a federal judge in Detroit dismissed the lawsuit after ruling the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate they suffered any actual financial injury as a result of the alleged practice. Without evidence of economic harm, the court found the drivers lacked a viable legal claim and dismissed the proposed class action. The ruling did not determine whether extending warranties for repair time is good business practice, only that the plaintiffs had not shown they were financially harmed under the circumstances presented. FCA denied any wrongdoing throughout the litigation. The decision underscores the importance of proving measurable damages in consumer class actions and illustrates that courts generally require more than dissatisfaction with warranty policies before allowing such cases to proceed.
Photo: ChatGPT Plus/CarPro.