Miller v. Gen. Motors, LLC
| Decision Date | 07 June 2018 |
| Docket Number | Case. No. 17-cv-14032 |
| Parties | AMY MILLER, et al., individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. GENERAL MOTORS, LLC, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan |
Honorable Thomas L. Ludington
On December 14, 2017, Plaintiffs filed a 23-count complaint on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated alleging that they purchased or leased certain GM vehicles with defective power liftgate struts that can unexpectedly fail, causing the liftgate to suddenly fall on people attempting to access the rear compartment. Compl. ¶ 1, ECF No. 1. Plaintiffs purchased or leased their vehicles in Michigan, Illinois, Massachusetts, Oregon, and Washington. The complaint alleges breaches of express and implied warranties, violations of state consumer protection laws, fraudulent omission, and unjust enrichment. On March 5, 2018, Defendant filed the instant Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), or for a more definite statement pursuant to rule 12(e). ECF No. 19. Plaintiffs responded on April 9, 2018, and Defendant replied on April 30, 2018. ECF Nos. 27, 28.
When adjudicating a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under rule 12(b)(6), the Court construe's the complaint in the non-movant's favor and accepts all of Plaintiff's factual allegations as true. See Lambert v. Hartman, 517 F.3d 433, 439 (6th Cir. 2008). The facts set forth herein are derived from the allegations in Plaintiff's complaint.
The vehicles containing the liftgate defect are: 2010-2012 GMC Acadia, 2010-2012 Buick Enclave, 2010 Saturn Outlook, 2010-2012 Chevrolet Traverse, 2010-2012 Cadillac SRX, 2010-2012 Chevrolet Equinox, and 2010-2012 GMC Terrain (collectively, the "Class Vehicles"). Compl. ¶ 1. "Each of the Class Vehicles shares a common defect: power liftgate struts that prematurely wear because the design allows dirt and debris to compromise the seals on the pressurized cylinder, allowing pressurized gas to escape (the 'Power Liftgate Defect')." Id. ¶ 2. The liftgate struts "fail without warning, causing injury to anyone in the path of the liftgate and hindering the owner's ability to use their rear compartment because the liftgate will not remain open." Id. GM had notice of the defect since at least 2010, when it issued the first of several "Technical Service Bulletins" (TSBs) to dealers regarding power liftgates. Id. ¶ 6. GM "likely had notice and knowledge" of the defects prior to that based on recalls issued by three other auto manufacturers of power liftgate struts from the same supplier, Stabilus, Inc., beginning in 2006. Id.
GM did not disclose the defect at the time of purchase, and Plaintiffs purchased their vehicles with the erroneous understanding that they would be safe and reliable. Plaintiff Miller "owns a 2010 Chevrolet Traverse with the Power Liftgate Defect," which was not disclosed to her at the time of the purchase in 2014, despite GM's knowledge of the defect. Id. ¶ 19-20. Plaintiff Graham "owns a 2011 Chevrolet Equinox with the Power Liftgate Defect," which wasnot disclosed to him at the time of the purchase, despite GM's knowledge of the defect. Id. ¶ 22-23. Plaintiff Leonard owns a 2012 Chevrolet Traverse which she purchased in 2012. Id. ¶ 25. Within the period of GM's express warranty, the liftgate on Plaintiff Leonard's vehicle "struggled to open and required manual assistance." Id. ¶ 26. Plaintiff Luse owns a 2011 GM Terrain which he purchased in 2013. Id. ¶ 29. On numerous occasions within the period of GM's express warranty, the power liftgate on Plaintiff Luse's vehicle collapsed unexpectedly, once striking Mr. Luse on the shoulder. Id. ¶ 30. Plaintiff Arnadi owns a 2012 Chevrolet Equinox, which he purchased in 2012. Id. ¶ 33. The power liftgate on Mr. Arnadi's vehicle "suddenly collapsed from the full-open position on multiple occasions." Id. ¶ 34. "On one such occasion, the collapsed liftgate smashed Mr. Arnadi into the vehicles rear bumper" and he was "forced to use his back to raise the liftgate and free himself." Id.
The GM owner's manual for the Class Vehicles warns: Id. ¶ 42. The GM owner's manual for the Class Vehicles also states: Id. ¶ 43. Plaintiffs alleged that the defect in the liftgates causes them to drop suddenly, with no lights, chimes, or any other user warnings. Id.
In July 2010, GM issued a TSB (technical service bulletin) notifying dealers, but not owners, of multiple problems with the power liftgates. Id. ¶ 44. Another TSB was issued to GM dealers in June 2013 acknowledging that dirt and debris were wearing the strut seals, and instructing dealers conducting strut replacements to change the orientation of the rod such that the rod faced downward, thereby preventing debris accumulation. Id. ¶ 45. GM issued a March2014 TSB which noted customer complaints related to the liftgates on the 2010-2014 Cadillac SRX, Chevrolet Equinox, and GMC terrain. Id. ¶ 47.
In June 2015, GM recalled the 2007-2012 GMC Acadia, 2008 to 2012 Buick Enclave, 2007-2010 Saturn Outlook, and 2009-2012 Chevrolet Traverse. Id. at ¶ 48. GM specified that the "vehicles have a condition in which the gas struts that hold the liftgate up may prematurely wear," because the struts "are orientated in a way that allows dirt particles to penetrate between the piston rod and the guiding bushing package." Id. ¶ 48. In conjunction with the recall, GM acknowledged that the Prop Rod Recovery system may be unable to prevent a liftgate with prematurely worn gas struts from falling too quickly. Id. ¶ 49.
GM's recall was limited to the remedy of a "reflash" (reprogramming) of the liftgate actuator motor control unit with a new software calibration. Id. ¶ 7. Dealers were instructed to verify that the liftgate stayed up and, if not, to replace the struts for free within 90 days of the software upgrade. Id. ¶ 51. If the struts failed after 90 days, customers were required to pay for the repair. Id. GM admitted in its recall notice to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) that the struts were defective because they allow dust and dirt to collect in the strut rod seals, causing those seals to fail. Id. ¶ 8. GM agreed to replace the struts only if they failed at the time of the repair or within 90 days thereafter. Id. ¶ 9. GM's recall was limited to four models, despite GM's knowledge that other models contained the same or similar struts and were the subject of consumer complaints and TSBs. Id. ¶ 10. The new software calibration failed to resolve the problem. Id. ¶ 11. GM did not recall the 2010-2014 Cadillac SRX, Chevrolet Equinox, and GMC Terrain vehicles, despite acknowledging in a TSB that those vehicles also had struts prone to premature wear. Id. ¶ 56.
Plaintiffs' complaint details a number of recalls and NHSTA investigations of Ford, Toyota, and Honda vehicles equipped with struts manufactured by Stabilus, the same company that manufactured GM's struts. Id. ¶ 58-81. These NHSTA investigations and recalls took place as early as 2006. Following Honda's 2012 recall, NHTSA opened an Equipment Query Investigation into Stabilus to determine which other companies had purchased the defective struts. Id. ¶ 77. In its response, Stabilus stated that it supplied struts for "nearly all vehicles produced in North America" but that no other manufacturer received the "same" struts as those that were recalled. Id. "NHTSA closed the investigation, in large part based on Stabilus's claim that most struts that were similar to the recalled struts were aftermarket parts not manufactured by Stabilus." Id. ¶ 81. By the end of 2012, the NHTSA had received 28 complaints of sudden falls of power liftgates in GM vehicles, 9 of which were related to vehicles GM subsequently recalled. Id. ¶ 85. These consumer complaints included reports of head injuries and a broken wrist. Id. ¶ 88.
GM extensively advertised the benefits of their power liftgate. Id. ¶ 93. Numerous advertising materials for the Class Vehicles advertised the power liftgate for easy loading and unloading of the rear compartment. Id. ¶ 95-100. The brochure for the GMC Terrain reads: Id. ¶ 99.
Plaintiffs' complaint contains 23 counts leading to five categories of claims for relief. First, Plaintiffs allege that GM breached its Express Limited Warranty that it would repair orreplace defects in material or workmanship free of charge if they became apparent during the warranty period. Plaintiffs seek redress for the breach of the express warranty pursuant to: 1) the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 2301, et seq.; 2) Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.2313; 3) 810 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/2-313 and 5/2A-210; 4) Mass Gen. Laws ch. 106, §§ 2-313 and 2A-210; 5) Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 72.3130 and 72a.2100; and 6) Wash. Rev. Code § 62A.2-313 and 62A.2A-210 (count 1, 3, 8, 12, 17, and 21).
Second, Plaintiff alleges that GM breached the Implied Warranty of Merchantability because, at the time of sale and at all times thereafter, the vehicles were not in merchantable condition, would not pass without objection in the trade, and were not fit for the ordinary purpose...
To continue reading
Request your trial