Automakers Limiting Scope of Recalls Face Challenges

A lawsuit claiming that General Motors fixed rear-end problems on police versions of 2007-08 Impalas but not those owned by about 400,000 other drivers  should be thrown out, GM was quoted as saying in a Detroit News article.

GM said it cannot be held liable for damages relating to vehicles produced before the "new GM" was created. The "new GM" was formed in July 2009 in a government-sponsored sale of the good assets of "old GM" out of bankruptcy as part of a $49.5 billion bailout.

GM lawyer Benjamin Jeffers said in a court filing on Aug. 11 that the class-action lawsuit filed by a Pennsylvania owner in June should be thrown out because it attempts "to hold new GM responsible for old GM's liabilities."

New GM said it only agreed to warranty obligations of cars assembled before 2009. The suit "is trying to saddle new GM with the alleged liability and conduct of old GM," the response stated.

The lawsuit argues that the rear-end problems cause owners to burn through rear tires, and that GM should replace potentially faulty rear suspension rods. GM sold 423,000 Impalas over the two-year period. The suit is the latest challenge brought on by owners to automakers, who limit the scope of auto recalls or service campaigns.

The only owner currently named in the suit, Donna Trusky of Blakely, Pa., bought a new Chevrolet Impala in February 2008 and said the tires wore out within 6,000 miles. Her GM dealer replaced the tires and provided an alignment, but didn't disclose the spindle rod issue, she said. According to the suit, GM issued a service bulletin in 2008 for police versions of the Impala.

"Despite having knowledge of this premature wear problem, [GM] has not recalled the subject cars, which has required class members to pay the cost of fixing the defective spindle rods as well as for replacement tires and realignment," alleges the lawsuit that was filed last week.

GM's legal response says the issue is not that the spindle rods were manufactured incorrectly, but that the design was the problem. That, GM says, should prevent the lawsuit from going forward.

Comments

  1. Bob D [ August 31, 2011 @ 12:50PM ]

    Let me get this straight; GM goes BK because of bad business decisions, gets bailed out with taxpayer money and when a taxpayer needs help, GM makes another bad decision. Got it.

    Ford needs to use the 2nd paragraph in this article just as it is written in an ad campaign. Copy and paste - add the Ford oval at the bottom.

    I didn't realize that GM was bought by an attorney conglomerate.

Comment On This Story

Name:  
Email:  
Comment: (Max. 10000 characters)  
Please leave blank:
* Please note that every comment is moderated.

Newsletter: Sign up to receive latest news, articles, and much more.

Read the latest

Auto Focus Blog: A blog covering fleets, auto rental and the business of cars

Why Do We Visit Capitol Hill?

Members of the American Car Rental Association met with U.S. senators, representatives, and their aides last week. Here’s why bringing the message to this forum matters.

The Customer Isn’t Always Right

Not caving to a customer with a blatant agenda may have consequences, especially for a small rental company that relies on stellar Yelp ratings to advertise. But business integrity must prevail.

The Truth Behind Compact Van Depreciation

Why are large van values holding up better than their compact counterparts, and will it last?

Job Finder: Access Top Talent. Fill Key Positions.