NJ Gets $4.1M Slice of $120M GM Ignition Switch Settlement
New Jersey is to receive $4.1 million of a $120 million multistate settlement with General Motors to resolve allegations that the company failed to disclose an ignition switch defect that could have caused engines to suddenly shut off during normal operations.
October 19, 2017 at 03:18 PM
3 minute read
New Jersey is to receive $4.1 million of a $120 million multistate settlement with General Motors to resolve allegations that the company failed to disclose an ignition switch defect that could have caused engines to suddenly shut off during normal operations.
New Jersey Attorney General Christopher Porrino in an Oct. 19 statement said the “deadly” defect could have affected “millions” of GM-made cars.
The overall $120 million settlement—involving 48 states and the District of Columbia—concludes a multijurisdictional investigation into GM's conduct in connection with millions of vehicles equipped with the ignition switch, which could render power brakes, steering, air bags and other key functions inoperative upon failing, according to the statement.
Neighboring states are to receive comparable amounts, according to separate releases from those states' attorneys general: Pennsylvania, $4.7 million; New York, $4.33 million; and Connecticut, $3.2 million.
“General Motors' conduct here was unconscionable. It put profit ahead of integrity and, more disturbingly, sat on its corporate hands as unwitting drivers and their passengers traveled throughout New Jersey—and throughout our nation—in GM vehicles that had the potential to fail and become uncontrollable at highway speeds,” Porrino said in the statement.
GM did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
In 2014, GM issued seven vehicle recalls in response to unintended key-rotation-related and/or ignition-switch-related issues, which affected more than 9 million vehicles in the United States. The recalls involved a defective ignition switch that, under certain conditions, could move out of the “run” position to the “accessory” or “off” position. If a collision occurred while the ignition switch was in the “accessory” or “off” position, the vehicle's safety airbags might also fail to deploy. The recalls warned of systems shutdowns, the statement said.
New Jersey and the other states alleged that certain GM employees knew as early as 2004 that the ignition switch posed a safety defect based on the airbag issue. However, the statement adds, despite this knowledge, GM personnel decided it was not a safety concern and delayed making recalls.
The states also alleged that GM continued to promote the reliability and safety of its motor vehicles equipped with the defective ignition switch; that these actions were unfair and deceptive; and that the automaker's actions violated state consumer protection laws, including the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act.
New Jersey was part of the multistate Executive Committee that negotiated the settlement. In addition to the monetary terms, the multistate agreement with GM contains a variety of injunctive relief terms. GM has agreed to:
- Not represent that a motor vehicle is “safe” unless it has complied with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards applicable to the motor vehicle at issue.
- Not represent that certified pre-owned vehicles advertised by GM are safe, have been repaired for safety issues, or have been subject to rigorous inspection, unless such vehicles are not affected by any open recalls relating to safety or have been repaired pursuant to such a recall.
- Instruct its dealers that all applicable recall repairs must be completed before any GM motor vehicle sold in the United States and included in a recall is eligible for certification and, if there is a recall on any certified pre-owned vehicle sold in the United States, the required repair must be completed before the vehicle is delivered to the customer.
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 AllConstruction Worker Hit By Falling Concrete Settles Claims for $2.3M
4 minute read$113K Sanction Award to Law Firm at Stake: NJ Supreme Court Will Consider 'Unsettled Law' Frivolous Litigation Question
4 minute readWhich Outside Law Firms Are Irreplaceable, and Which Should Have Gotten the Ax Years Ago?
4 minute readTrending Stories
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