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
© 2024 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 AllSecurities Claims Against Lilium N.V. for Electric Plane Production Delays Fail to Take Flight, Federal Judge Holds
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Recent Decisions Regarding the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
- 2The Tech Built by Law Firms in 2024
- 3Distressed M&A: Mass Torts, Bankruptcy and Furthering the Search for Consensus: Another Purdue Decision
- 4For Safer Traffic Stops, Replace Paper Documents With ‘Contactless’ Tech
- 5As Second Trump Administration Approaches, Businesses Brace for Sweeping Changes to Immigration Policy
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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