Suits & Settlements: The Car Pro Legal Roundup

Editor's note: Suits & Settlements is a weekly column in which Car Pro Show host Jerry Reynolds takes a look at the latest automotive-related legal headlines.

In this week’s Suits & Settlements, you’ll find the following reports:  

• FORD DIESEL TRUCK OWNERS WIN CLASS CERTIFICATION IN FUEL PUMP SUIT
• NEW FUEL ECONOMY RULES COULD RESHAPE AUTOMAKERS’ EV PLANS
• FORD HYBRID ENGINE FIRE LAWSUIT CUT FROM 11 PLAINTIFFS TO TWO
• MAVIS DISCOUNT TIRE TO PAY $215,000 TO SETTLE PENNSYLVANIA BILLING CASE

FORD DIESEL TRUCK OWNERS WIN CLASS CERTIFICATION IN FUEL PUMP SUIT

A long-running lawsuit over allegedly defective fuel pumps in Ford diesel trucks has taken a significant step forward, with a Michigan federal judge certifying classes of owners in five states. The case involves 2011 and newer Ford trucks equipped with the 6.7-liter Power Stroke diesel engine and Bosch CP4 high-pressure fuel pump. Owners allege the CP4 pump is inadequately lubricated by U.S. diesel fuel and can wear internally, sending metal debris throughout the fuel system and potentially causing sudden pump and engine failure. Repairs can be extremely expensive because contamination may require replacement of multiple fuel-system components. Ford disputes that the CP4 has the common defect alleged by the plaintiffs and sought summary judgment on the claims. On Sept. 30, U.S. District Judge Laurie J. Michelson certified classes in California, Louisiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania and South Carolina consisting generally of qualifying owners who paid out of pocket for CP4 repairs and did not sign applicable dealership arbitration agreements. The judge declined to certify proposed classes in Indiana and New Jersey. In a separate ruling issued the same day, Michelson granted Ford summary judgment on some claims but rejected its attempt to end the case on the central causation dispute, concluding that competing expert evidence creates issues for a jury to decide. The ruling does not establish that Ford sold defective trucks or that it is liable for owners' repair costs. It does, however, allow the certified claims to proceed collectively, bringing this years-old CP4 dispute substantially closer to trial.

NEW FUEL ECONOMY RULES COULD RESHAPE AUTOMAKERS’ EV PLANS

The federal government's newly finalized fuel economy standards represent a major change in the regulatory pressure that had been pushing automakers toward electric and hybrid vehicles. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's new Corporate Average Fuel Economy rules project a fleetwide average of approximately 34.9 miles per gallon for the 2031 model year, compared with approximately 50.4 mpg under the standards finalized in 2024. The new requirements still call for improvements in fuel economy, but at a substantially slower rate. NHTSA estimates the change will reduce automakers' technology costs by about $60.6 billion through 2031, or approximately $1,289 per vehicle, although the agency cautions that consumer savings depend on how much of those reduced costs manufacturers pass along to buyers. The government also estimates consumers will spend more on gasoline under the less-stringent standards. Another significant change is the elimination of inter-manufacturer fuel-economy credit trading beginning with credits earned in the 2028 model year, reducing a revenue source for EV manufacturers that have sold credits to traditional automakers. The auto industry's principal trade association supports the new standards, arguing they better reflect consumer demand and current market conditions. Environmental organizations strongly oppose the changes and are preparing legal challenges, contending the rollback will increase fuel consumption and emissions. NHTSA projects gasoline consumption will increase compared with the previous standards. With court challenges expected, the rules could leave automakers facing another period of regulatory uncertainty while making long-term decisions about gasoline, hybrid and electric-vehicle production.

FORD HYBRID ENGINE FIRE LAWSUIT CUT FROM 11 PLAINTIFFS TO TWO

A proposed class-action lawsuit accusing Ford of selling hybrid vehicles with an engine defect that can lead to stalling and underhood fires has been substantially narrowed by a Michigan federal judge. The litigation involves certain Ford Escape, Ford Maverick and Lincoln Corsair hybrids and plug-in hybrids equipped with 2.5-liter engines. Plaintiffs allege improperly machined crankshafts can lead to crankshaft-bearing failure and ultimately an engine “block breach,” allowing oil or fuel vapors to escape near ignition sources. Ford previously recalled certain affected vehicles after reports of underhood smoke and fires. On Sept. 29, U.S. District Judge Stephen J. Murphy III dismissed nine of the 11 plaintiffs, ruling that simply owning a recalled vehicle without experiencing the alleged defect was not enough to establish the concrete injury necessary to pursue their claims in federal court. Two plaintiffs remain because they alleged their vehicles actually experienced engine problems connected to the claimed defect. The judge also allowed portions of their case to continue, meaning Ford did not win complete dismissal of the lawsuit. The ruling illustrates an important distinction in automotive class actions: exposure to a potential defect or recall does not necessarily mean an owner has suffered a legally recognizable injury. The decision does not determine whether Ford's 2.5-liter hybrid engines are defective or whether Ford is ultimately liable. Those questions remain unresolved as the claims of the two remaining plaintiffs move forward.

MAVIS DISCOUNT TIRE TO PAY $215,000 TO SETTLE PENNSYLVANIA BILLING CASE

Mavis Discount Tire has agreed to pay $215,000 to resolve a consumer-protection lawsuit brought by thePennsylvania Attorney General's Office over allegations that customers were charged for unnecessary automotive services. The state accused Mavis Tire Supply LLC of recommending and billing customers for work that was not needed, including services identified during vehicle inspections at Pennsylvania locations. The case stemmed from an investigation by the Attorney General's Bureau of Consumer Protection into the company's sales and billing practices. Under the settlement, Mavis will pay $165,000 in restitution for eligible consumers and $50,000 to the Commonwealth for costs and penalties. The agreement also requires Mavis to change certain business practices, including maintaining documentation supporting recommended repairs and providing consumers with clearer information concerning proposed work. The settlement resolves the state's claims without a trial and does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by Mavis. Pennsylvania Attorney General Dave Sunday said the agreement is intended to ensure consumers receive honest information about whether automotive repairs are actually necessary and are not charged for work they do not need. For consumers, the case is also a good reminder that when a repair shop recommends unexpected or expensive additional work, particularly during routine maintenance, there is nothing wrong with asking to see why the repair is needed or getting a second opinion before authorizing it.

Photo: ChatGPT Plus/CarPro.