In a class action lawsuit against Chrysler, a federal judge ruled in favor of the plaintiffs on Monday, June 15, 2015, when he denied a request by Chrysler Group LLC to dismiss the class action alleging Chrysler of selling Dodge Darts from 2013 and 2014 with defective clutches. He found that the plaintiffs provided a sufficient description of the defect in their complaint. He also found that the allegation that the defect caused the vehicles to be unmerchantable, was sufficient.
Although the judge reduced the size of the class action, he rejected Chrysler’s argument that certain plaintiffs were in violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) by failing to state a defect in adequate detail in order to permit Chrysler to defend itself. According to the lawsuit, the automaker was aware that the vehicles with manual transmissions had a defective hydraulic clutch system. It is also alleged that although Chrysler knew that the clutch system malfunctioned, and was marked by several problems and safety issues, it concealed the defect from customers and instead, resumed marketing the vehicles as “robust and reliable.”
However, the judge did not side with the plaintiffs completely, for he dismissed the claims of express warranty and a violation of the Magnuson-Moss Act to the degree to which the basis of those claims is a design defect. He ruled in this way because Dart’s express warranties do not include design defects.
The Magnuson-Moss Act states that a warrantor must reveal, completely and clearly, in language that is easy to comprehend, the warranty terms and conditions to the degree to which they are required by the Federal Trade Commission. According to the terms of the Act, any ambiguous statements contained in a warranty are construed against the one who drafted the warranty.
Moreover, under the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the judge dismissed the lawsuit’s punitive damages claims concerning Chrysler’s representation of the cars’ safety. The court found that a press release containing a vice president’s depiction of pre-market testing did not demonstrate that an officer or other person in a position of authority approved of Chrysler’s alleged wrongful behavior.
Nevertheless, the judge seemed to be mostly in favor of the plaintiffs, and hopefully, Chrysler and other automakers will be deterred from hiding their vehicles’ defects from consumers in the interest of increasing their profits. Surely, the cost of defending a lawsuit and the resulting award or settlement amount must exceed the price of taking preventive measures to ensure the safety of consumer products.