Ward v. Gen. Motors LLC (In re Gen. Motors LLC)
| Decision Date | 20 June 2017 |
| Docket Number | 14-MD-2543 (JMF) |
| Parties | IN RE: GENERAL MOTORS LLC IGNITION SWITCH LITIGATION This Document Relates To: Ward v. General Motors LLC, 14-CV-8317 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
[Regarding the Parties' Daubert Motions and Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment]
The next bellwether trial in this multidistrict litigation ("MDL"), familiarity with which is presumed, involves claims brought under Arizona law by Plaintiff Dennis Ward against General Motors LLC ("New GM") stemming from a March 27, 2014 accident involving Ward's 2009 Chevrolet HHR. That car was manufactured by General Motors Corporation ("Old GM") — which filed for bankruptcy in 2009, a bankruptcy from which New GM emerged after it purchased most of Old GM's assets and assumed some of its liabilities. Now pending are (1) dueling motions to preclude expert opinions and testimony under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (1993), and Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence (Docket Nos. 3873, 3877); and (2) cross-motions, pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for summary judgment. (Docket Nos. 3868, 3882).1
For the reasons stated below, New GM's Daubert motion is granted in part and denied in part, while Ward's Daubert motion is denied without prejudice to raising objections to particular testimony at trial. Additionally, New GM's motion for summary judgment is denied to the extent that it seeks dismissal of all claims on causation grounds and Ward's claims sounding innegligence on other grounds, but granted to the extent that it seeks dismissal of Ward's fraud claims. Finally, Ward's motion for partial summary judgment is denied.
Ward, a resident of Arizona, purchased a used 2009 Chevrolet HHR from Precision Toyota, a car dealership in Tucson, Arizona, in December 2012. . The car was previously owned by John and Sue Suor, who had purchased it from an authorized Old GM dealership in 2008. (New GM SOF ¶ 5). A little over two years after Ward's purchase, on the morning of March 27, 2014, he was driving the car on or near a rough patch of roadway in Tucson when he crashed into a Ford Explorer directly in front of him. (Id. ¶¶ 13, 14, 19; Docket No. 4052 ("New GM Response SOF") ¶ 49). Ward claims that, prior to impact, he saw that the driver of the Ford Explorer had stopped, so he "smashed" on his brake pedal and "attempt[ed] to steer away," but he was unable to prevent the crash because his "vehicle suddenly and unexpectedly lost power." (New GM SOF ¶ 18; Am. Compl. ¶¶ 1, 19-21). He alleges that was due to a defect in the ignition switch of his car that allowed the switch to move from the "run" to the "accessory" or "off" positions when the vehicle "experience[d] rough road conditions or other jarring." (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 28, 72). Whatever the cause of the accident, Ward sustained severe injuries, including a ruptured patellar tendon, and was subsequently hospitalized. (Id. ¶¶ 22-25).
On the following day, March 28, 2014, New GM expanded a previously announced recall relating to ignition switch defects in certain of its vehicles — familiarity with which is presumed — to include certain 2008-2011 model year vehicles, including Ward's HHR. (New GM SOF ¶ 4). While the previous recall concerned only ignition switches containing service part number10392423 (the "423 switch"), the new recall was directed at vehicles that might have received the concededly defective 423 switch during repairs. (Id. ¶¶ 1-4). Significantly, Ward's ignition switch, at the time of his accident, was not the concededly defective 423 switch; it was a switch containing service part number 15886190 (the "190 switch"), which contained a longer spring and detent plunger assembly that New GM began using in or about 2008. (Id. ¶ 8; New GM Response SOF ¶ 44). In April 2014, New GM sent Ward a recall notice regarding the ignition switch defect. (Docket No. 4003 ("Ward Add'l SOF") ¶ 61). In the notice, New GM notified Ward that it would replace his ignition switch "[w]hether or not [his] ignition switch ha[d] been previously serviced." (New GM Response SOF ¶ 64). In detailing the dangers of the 423 switch, the recall notice warned that (Ward Add'l SOF ¶ 63).
On October 17, 2014, Ward filed this action against New GM, alleging that he suffered various injuries as a result of the accident, which was caused, in turn, by his car unexpectedly losing power due to a defect in the car's ignition switch. (14-CV-8317, Docket No. 1). Specifically, Ward brings claims under Arizona law pursuant to four theories: negligence (Count I), strict liability (Count II), fraudulent concealment (Count III), and violation of the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act (Count IV). (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 118-158). All but the strict liability claim are pleaded (in the terminology of the bankruptcy court that presided over the bankruptcy of OldGM) as "Independent Claims" — that is, claims "based solely on New GM's own, independent, post-Closing acts or conduct." In re Motors Liquidation Co., 09-50026 (REG), Docket No. 13177 ¶ 4 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. June 1, 2015); see, e.g., In re: Gen. Motors LLC Ignition Switch Litig., 202 F. Supp. 3d 362, 364-72 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) ("Cockram Summ. J. Op.") (). Ward seeks both compensatory damages and punitive damages with respect to these Independent Claims. (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 159-163). In light of rulings by the bankruptcy court, Ward seeks only compensatory damages with respect to his strict liability claim, as to which New GM assumed liability from Old GM in connection with the bankruptcy. See, e.g., In re Motors Liquidation Co., 541 B.R. 104, 108 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2015) ().
The Court begins with the parties' competing Daubert motions. (Docket Nos. 3873 and 3877). The admissibility of expert testimony is governed by Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, which provides in relevant part that "[a] witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify" to his opinion if:
Fed. R. Evid. 702. In Daubert, the United States Supreme Court defined the "gatekeeping role" of district courts with respect to expert testimony, declaring that "the Rules of Evidence —especially Rule 702 — . . . assign to the trial judge the task of ensuring that an expert's testimony both rests on a reliable foundation and is relevant to the task at hand." 509 U.S. at 597. "The Rule 702 inquiry is a flexible one that "depends upon the particular circumstances of the particular case at issue." In re: Gen. Motors LLC Ignition Switch Litig., No. 14-MD-2543 (JMF), 2015 WL 9480448, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 29, 2015) ("Scheuer Daubert Op.") (internal quotation marks omitted). "Although a district court should admit expert testimony only where it is offered by a qualified expert and is relevant and reliable, exclusion remains the exception rather than the rule." Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). And "[a]lthough expert testimony should be excluded if it is speculative or conjectural, or if it is based on assumptions that are so unrealistic and contradictory as to suggest bad faith, or to be in essence an apples and oranges comparison, other contentions that the assumptions are unfounded go to the weight, not the admissibility, of the testimony." Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). As the Daubert Court itself stressed, "the traditional and appropriate means of attacking shaky but admissible evidence" are not exclusion, but rather "[v]igorous cross-examination, presentation of contrary evidence, and careful instruction on the burden of proof." Daubert, 509 U.S. at 596.
New GM challenges the testimony of four experts that Ward intends to call: Matthew Pitman, Glen Stevick, Steve Loudon, and David Lent. The Court addresses each expert in turn, followed by a brief discussion of one issue relating to both Loudon and Stevick.
First, New GM seeks to preclude testimony from Ward's accident reconstructionist, Matthew Pitman. To the extent that New GM seeks to preclude Pitman from offering his opinion that the accident was caused by inadvertent key rotation, the motion falls short. Pitmanis indisputably qualified as an accident reconstructionst, and his reconstruction of the accident and opinion that it was caused by inadvertent key rotation are based on commonly used methods, including tests he conducted, and a review of medical records, witness depositions, repair records, and photographs. . New GM's arguments to the contrary — including, for example, its argument that Pitman ignored certain facts in concluding...
To continue reading
Request your trial