GM Orders Truck and SUV Brake Recalls Targeted in Class Actions
"While it is good that GM publicly acknowledged the defect and its inherent safety risk, they've misled Americans by implying that they can remedy a mechanical brake failure with an electronic software patch," Beasley Allen's Clay Barnett of Atlanta said.
September 13, 2019 at 05:52 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Daily Report
General Motors Co. recalled nearly 3.5 million pickup trucks and SUVs targeted in two putative class actions in Florida and California federal courts filed on behalf of the vehicle owners.
The complaints alleged braking system defects in full-size SUVs and trucks made from 2014 to 2018. The actions were filed in the Northern District of Florida and the Central District of California.
Beasley Allen of Atlanta and Montgomery, Alabama, partnered with law firms in both venues: Cory Watson of Birmingham, Alabama; Kiesel Law of Beverly Hills, California; and Wyly-Rommel of Texarkana, Texas.
GM is defended in Florida by Ginger Boyd of Nelson Mullins Broad and Cassel in Tallahassee and Crowell & Moring's Jared Levine in New York and Kathleen Sooy in Washington.
The plaintiffs attorneys said the recalls won't fix the problems. They said the alleged failure is mechanical, but the recall repair is electronic.
GM had no response by deadline.
"While it is good that GM publicly acknowledged the defect and its inherent safety risk, they've misled Americans by implying that they can remedy a mechanical brake failure with an electronic software patch," Beasley Allen's Clay Barnett of Atlanta said in a news release Friday. "Ultimately, the failing mechanical vacuum pump at the heart of the defect should be replaced with a more robust unit."
GM documents posted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration say the amount of vacuum generated by the vacuum assist pump can decrease over time, according to the Beasley Allen lawyers.
The pump is lubricated by engine oil that passes through a filter screen before entering the pump. As the vehicle ages, oil sludge and other debris can accumulate on the filter, causing the pump to fail internally.
When this happens, the hydraulic braking system is seriously compromised, the suits claim. Vehicles may experience brake boost failure, which would require increased brake pedal effort, leading to a hard brake pedal feel, and potentially increased stopping distance, they allege.
Beasley Allen said drivers consistently report a stiff brake pedal that requires multiple times the normal leg force needed to depress the pedal and activate the hydraulic brakes, and some drivers report a simultaneous dashboard alert that the brake assist system requires servicing.
"The irreparable and defective braking system supplied in all of the Class Vehicles features a defective design that is prone to sudden and unexpected loss of vacuum in the brake booster, requiring replacement of the brake booster and/or the system's vacuum assist pump," the complaint said. "When Class Vehicles suddenly and unexpectedly lose vacuum, the resulting brake booster failure makes Class Vehicles difficult to stop: the brake pedal becomes hard, much more force is required from the driver to slow the vehicle, and stopping distance is severely and suddenly compromised. This defective braking system common to all Class Vehicles is a clear safety hazard that was never disclosed to any member of the class prior to purchase."
The lawsuits alleged GM has been aware of the problem since at least 2014, and "should have voluntarily recalled the Class Vehicles long ago."
Beasley Allen has a deep history of litigation against GM. The firm joined Atlanta plaintiffs lawyer Lance Cooper in a renewed lawsuit against the company over an ignition switch defect for Ken and Beth Melton, the parents of Brooke Melton. Discovery in their case led to GM recalls of 30 million cars with the same ignition switch, which was causing vehicles to shut off in traffic. The case also led to many more lawsuits.
The brake cases are: Scott Peckerar v. General Motors, 5:18-cv-02153-DMG-SP; filed in the U.S. District Court, Central District of California, and Jason Compton v. General Motors; 1:19-cv-00033-AW-GRJ; filed in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Florida.
Read the Florida complaint:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTragedy on I-95: Florida Lawsuit Against Horizon Freight System Could Set New Precedent in Crash Cases
2 minute readSecurities Claims Against Lilium N.V. for Electric Plane Production Delays Fail to Take Flight, Federal Judge Holds
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 15th Circuit Considers Challenge to Louisiana's Ten Commandments Law
- 2Crocs Accused of Padding Revenue With Channel-Stuffing HEYDUDE Shoes
- 3E-discovery Practitioners Are Racing to Adapt to Social Media’s Evolving Landscape
- 4The Law Firm Disrupted: For Office Policies, Big Law Has Its Ear to the Market, Not to Trump
- 5FTC Finalizes Child Online Privacy Rule Updates, But Ferguson Eyes Further Changes
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250