![]() ![]() ![]() In its motion, FCA also told the judge he should dismiss both common-law and statutory fraud claims which rest on alleged fraudulent omissions and affirmative misrepresentations. Leitman also dismissed the unjust enrichment claim by ruling, "a vehicle purchaser cannot maintain an unjust enrichment claim where there is an express warranty that governs the same subject matter as his unjust enrichment claims." The judge found the plaintiffs don't allege they experienced any kind of safety defects due to warped door panels. However, the judge said he wasn't persuaded by either argument and he dismissed implied warranty claims. And second, "the ordinary purpose of their vehicles was not simply to provide transportation, but instead the vehicles were 'part art,' and the Panel Defect interfered with that latter purpose." The judge agreed and said under Texas law which applies to one plaintiff, the plaintiff must allege his car was “unfit for the ordinary purposes for which used.”Īnd under Florida law that applies to the other plaintiff, the “implied warranty of merchantability ensures consumers that purchased goods will be suitable for its ordinary purpose.”Īccording to the judge, both plaintiffs argue their cars were unmerchantable and not suitable for their “ordinary purpose” for two reasons.įirst, a warped door panel is allegedly a safety hazard. The plaintiffs didn't have such success with implied warranty claims because Chrysler argues the Chrysler 300s, Dodge Chargers and Dodge Challengers are not unmerchantable. According to FCA, “the allegations in the cannot plausibly be interpreted to support anything other than an alleged design defect.”īut the judge ruled both plaintiffs plausibly allege warped door panels can come from either design defects or manufacturing and material defects, the later which are covered by the express warranties. However, the plaintiffs did have success with breach of express warranty claims.Ĭhrysler argues express warranty claims brought by two plaintiffs fail because the plaintiffs argue the door panel problems are design defects not covered by the warranties. The automaker allegedly knew about warped door panels before the cars were sold based on customer complaints and pre-sale vehicle testing.Ĭhrysler Warped Door Panel Lawsuit Partly Dismissedįiat Chrysler (FCA) filed a motion to dismiss the class action lawsuit and the judge agreed with many of its arguments. Moisture allegedly damages the side airbags, security systems and heating and cooling systems, not to mention how bad the cars look with damaged door panels.Ĭhrysler has allegedly concealed the door panel problems from consumers and allegedly misrepresented the trim quality of the expensive cars. This also allegedly leaves gaps between the frames and the panels which expose the electrical components, airbags and wiring. The Chrysler warped door panel lawsuit alleges the interior trim panels are bonded to the frames by an adhesive which eventually fails and causes the panels to loosen and pull away. The plaintiffs claim the cars have an “inherent defect that results in interior trim panels (door panels, center console, dash console, kick panels) warping and pulling away from the vehicle frame.” Chrysler 300 door panels allegedly warp, along with Dodge Charger and Dodge Challenger panelsĬhrysler door panels that warp and pull away from the frames caused a lawsuit that has now been mostly dismissed by a California federal judge.Īccording to the door panel class action lawsuit, 2014-2021 Chrysler 300, Dodge Charger and Dodge Challenger cars are affected by the warping issues.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |