Q. I've had several problems with my vehicle but they have now been fixed.  Should I consult a lawyer. 

A. Our office has frequently obtained compensation for inconvenience, vehicle problems, and potential diminished value.  Yes generally it makes sense to check with a lawyer as long as the claims are done on contingency (payment upon settlement or by the manufacturer). 

Q. GM has now replaced the engine, with only 24,000 miles.  Quite frankly, I don't want the car, and would just like to get a refund of the purchase prices and select something else.

A. Unfortunately probably not. Most courts say the manufacturer has a reasonable opportunity to repair.   In Palmucci v. Brunswick Corp. 311 N.J. Super. 607 (App. Div. 1998), the court addressed whether a consumer could immediately rescind a contract and demand a refund for a defective boat without first allowing the manufacturer an opportunity to fix it.  The court said no, finding a manufacturer or seller is generally entitled to a reasonable opportunity to repair a defect before a consumer can legally revoke acceptance of the product (i.e., return it for a refund) even if the consumer asserts the repair will be unsuccessul.

Q. How does the class action work.  Can I join the class action, do I have to.    

 











A. A class action law firm selects some representative consumers, called class action representatives.  They usually do not change, and typically consumers cannot become class action representatives.  Class actions typically take some time, perhaps 2,3 years or more, as there are a number of issues in grouping thousands of potential claims. Class actions are governed by Federal Civil Procedure Rule 23.     Since the manufacturer is potentially subject to millions of dollars in damages, there is an incentive to challenge claims both procedurally and substantively.  It may argue that claims are different and cannot be grouped or that the plaintiff's claims are not representative, for example, assume one plaintiff says his engine continues to have problems after repair, that claim is arguably different from one involving a person who had a repair but no further problem but challenges a dimunition in value. 

For example, a Court recently dismissed a Ford engine class action saying,

"defendant does not deny that some vehicles contained the Valvetrain Defect, namely those manufactured between May 1, 2021 and October 31, 2021 (the “spike period”), all of which were subject to a recall. See, e.g., ECF No. 32, PageID.553 (“We don't have a question as to whether there was a problem with some intake valves at some point because we have the recall that tells us that.”). But Defendant argues Plaintiffs have not plausibly alleged that their vehicles, manufactured But Defendant argues Plaintiffs have not plausibly alleged that their vehicles, manufactured 19 before May 2021, also contain defective valves. Ford argues Plaintiffs have pled, “at most, only a hypothetical future injury,” in that “they subjectively fear their vehicles might have a problem but offer no facts to substantiate that concern.” ECF No. 22,  see Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (“The plausibility standard . . . asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.”). 

Thus, the plaintiff needs to prove that he suffered an injury or damage, and that this was representative of the class.  In the Ford case, a showing of a widespread problem which had not cause damage to the consumer bringing the claim was deemed not enough.    

Q. Do you anticipate a full refund in the 6.2 engine class action. 

A. Probably not, while individuals have gotten vehicle repurchase, and we have secured many repurchases, such settlements are unusual in a class setting.  A compromise more typically involves such type of credit or reimbursement. 

Q. Do lawyers charge up front or be paid on settlement 
Our office generally works on contingency in 6.2 engine cases, you have to check with other firms about their policies.   



Call for a Free Consultation on Your 6.2 Engine Problem.