– A lawsuit for the consumption of GM oil was partially dismissed, but the judge granted the plaintiff the right to change most of the claims.
Plaintiff Tim Nauman filed a class oil lawsuit related to 2011-2014 General Motors vehicles equipped with 5.3-liter Vortec 5300 LC9 Generation IV V8 engines.
According to the actor, his 2011 Chevrolet Silverado consumes an excessive amount of oil because the piston rings are defective. The oil consumption lawsuit alleges that GM was aware of the piston ring problem before the 2011 truck was sold to the plaintiff.
However, the automaker has failed to warn the plaintiff about oil consumption problems.
Motion to dismiss GM oil consumption lawsuit
In its motion of denial, GM argues that the breach of express warranty claims should be dismissed because the plaintiff argues that a design flaw causes alleged oil consumption problems. But the warranty only covers defects in materials and workmanship, not design defects.
GM also argues that the overwhelming majority of courts found that the warranty did not cover design flaws, convincing the judge to dismiss the claim.
GM also argues that the breach of implied warranty claims should be dropped because the plaintiff bought his truck from an independent dealer and Washington law requires confidentiality (a relationship) with GM. The automaker also claims the plaintiff did not claim his truck was unmarketable at the time of sale.
Additionally, GM told the judge that the plaintiff’s request was submitted too late.
According to Judge Benjamin H. Settle, plaintiff did not respond to GM’s arguments, leaving the judge no legal choice other than to dismiss the breach of the implied warranty claim.
The next claim that GM claims should be denied is the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (MMWA) claim. The automaker argues that the application must be rejected because the plaintiff fails to name the 100 plaintiffs requested.
The judge dismissed the question when the plaintiff did not answer GM’s thesis yet again. This means that only Washington’s claims remain because the National Guarantee Act was rejected.
Subsequently, the GM oil lawsuit claims that GM was aware of the problems based on three issues.
“Plaintiff alleges that GM was aware of the oil consumption defect through (1) GM’s eventual redesign of the engine in question, (2) numerous consumer complaints relating to the defect, and (3) the bulletins of the GM’s technical service, which plaintiff claims address the defect. “- Judge Settle
The judge ruled against the plaintiff and found that GM’s possible redesign of the engine did not adequately deduce knowledge of the defects.
However, the judge says consumer complaints can support an inference of knowledge.
“The Ninth Circuit found that allegations of an unusually high volume of complaints to the defendant directly adequately support knowledge. On the other hand, the courts have expressed doubts that customer complaints on a manufacturer’s website adequately support a ‘knowledge inference because complaints merely establish that some consumers complained.’ “- Judge Settle
The oil lawsuit claims that there are numerous consumer complaints filed with third party and third party websites, including CarComplaints.com. And those complaints refer to the fourth generation Vortec 5300 engines.
According to the judge, technical service bulletins on GM Oil Consumption (TSB) along with numerous complaints “support a plausible inference under Rule 9 (b) standards that GM was aware of the oil consumption defect. on appeal, the plaintiff has alleged allegations sufficient to support a plausible inference of GM’s knowledge. “
Based on GM’s petition for rejection, the judge concluded that plaintiff cannot maintain an express guarantee or unjustified enrichment petition.
However, if the plaintiff so desires, he may amend and resubmit his claims relating to an implied warranty breach, MMWA breach, and an injunction under the Washington Consumer Protection Act.
The lawsuit for the consumption of GM oil was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington in Tacoma: Tim Nauman, v. General Motors LLC.
The actor is represented by Dicello Levitt Gutzler LLC and Beasley Allen Crow Methvin Portis & Miles PC.