Class-action des propriétaires de Z06

Une "class-action" des propriétaires de ZO6 a été lancée ce jour contre GM
dans l'état de Floride concernant les problèmes de surchauffe.
26000 voitures concernées y compris les modèles 2017.

Ca fait pas mal de voitures concernées...

Petit rectificatif
la class-action a été lancé en juin 2017
désolé, mais comme l'article m'est apparu en ouvrant un forum Corvette Américain,
j'ai cru que ça venait de se faire.

ET BEN je vais me joindre a eux
je ne peu plus rouler du 15juin au 15 septembre sur circuit
et étant en BVA pas de solution pour moi sauf à me reprendre ma z06 et l'échanger contre une
ZR1 ça m'ira tres bien !!!(elle est dotée de 12/13 radiateurs je crois que ça devrai aller)

CHRISTOPHE14 a écrit:ET  BEN  je vais me joindre  a eux
je ne peu plus rouler  du 15juin au 15 septembre sur circuit
et  étant en BVA  pas de solution pour moi  sauf à me reprendre ma  z06  et  l'échanger contre une
ZR1  ça m'ira tres bien !!!(elle est dotée de 12/13 radiateurs je crois  que ça devrai aller)

Je suppose qu'aux States, ça concerne essentiellement les BA, toujours pas de remède ni d'action prévu par GM?

Jugement rendu je 17 janvier


Attached is the Order issued today by Judge Gayles in the Vazquez v. GM case pending in the federal court in Miami. This is the Z06 overheating class action litigation. GM had moved to dismiss all five asserted claims. GM was successful on only two of the claims. Below is a summary of the ruling on the various claims in the sequence addressed by the Court.

A. The Warranty Claims:

Claim 4 (Breach of warranty under Florida law):
This Claim asserted that GM’s failure to remedy the vehicle’s defects constituted a breach of the express limited warranty. GM argued that the limited warranty covered only manufacturing defects. The Court ruled that “The Court finds sufficient ambiguity in the warranty language to make dismissal of the claims at this stage premature.”

Claim 1 (Violation of Federal Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act):
The Court stated, “claims under the Magnuson–Moss Act stand or fall with [a plaintiff’s] express and implied warranty claims under state law.” The Court the ruled “[b]ecause the Court has determined that it cannot dismiss Plaintiffs’ state law claim for breach of express warranty, the Court likewise declines to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Magnuson–Moss claim."

B. The Fraud Claims:

Claim 3 (Fraudulent Concealment):
GM had moved to dismiss this claim several grounds, including Florida’s “economic loss” rule, which precludes tort (e.g., fraud) actions if the only loss is economic. (By way of explanation of this legal point, contract law is designed to enforce the expectancy interests of the parties, whereas tort law imposes a duty of reasonable care and thereby encourages citizens to avoid causing physical harm to others.) The Court dismissed this Claim, ruling that “[t]he parties agree that Plaintiffs’ damages are purely economic. Fraudulent concealment claims in the products liability sphere that seek to recover only economic damages are clearly barred by Florida’s economic loss rule.”

Claim 2 (Violation of the Florida Unfair & Deceptive Trade Practices Act):
GM moved to dismiss this Claim because it was not pled with the particularity required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b). In rejecting GM’s challenge, the Court ruled “[a]s described above, Plaintiffs allege numerous specific representations, the precise marketing materials in which those representations were contained, and the manner in which the representations allegedly misled Plaintiffs and similarly situated consumers. Plaintiffs have offered GM sufficiently detailed notice of the precise misconduct Plaintiffs allege, including the what, when, where, and how of the alleged deceptive conduct. This is all that Rule 9(b) requires.”

C. The Unjust Enrichment Claim (Claim 5):
This claim dealt with GM being unjustly enriched by the sale of the Z06s with their problems. Under Florida law, “unjust enrichment is an equitable remedy and is, therefore, not available where there is an adequate legal remedy” – i.e., a contract remedy. The Court concluded that “[b]ecause there is an express warranty governing the subject matter at issue here, Plaintiffs’ unjust enrichment claims must be dismissed.”

Overall, a good ruling for the plaintiffs – and thus for Z06 owners. GM will have to defend the two warranty claims and one of the fraud claims. While GM can be expected later to challenge the claims on summary judgment to avoid a trial, the ruling should enhance the chances for a settlement.