Toyota Motor Corporation named in class action lawsuit for vehicle frames that prematurely rust and corrode

 

According to the class action complaint, the frames for certain model year Toyota vehicles are prone to excessive, premature rust corrosion because the frames were not properly prepared and treated against rust corrosion when they were manufactured. The model years at issue in this Class Action complaint are the 2005 to 2011 Toyota 4- Runners.

Excessively corroded frames pose a serious safety hazard to a vehicle’s occupants because a vehicle’s frame forms the basis of a vehicle’s crash-worthiness, including its ability to withstand or minimize damage to the occupant compartment in the event of an accident.

Toyota has represented that its vehicles are crash-worthy and sturdy throughout the expected life of the vehicles and its customers expect vehicles to remain crash-worthy and sturdy throughout the vehicle’s life. Contrary to this promise and expectation, the frames of the Toyota 4-Runner and the other Toyota Vehicles were designed, manufactured, and sold with inadequate rust corrosion protection. As a result, the frames on the Toyota 4-Runner and the other Toyota Vehicles are prone to excessive rust corrosion, which render the vehicles unstable and unsafe.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have long known the frames on the Toyota 4-Runner and the other Toyota Vehicles are defective because they lack adequate rust corrosion protection. Despite this knowledge, the Defendants failed to disclose the existence of the Toyota 4-Runner defect to the Plaintiff, other Class members, and the public. Nor has it issued a recall to inspect and repair the Toyota 4-Runner, or offered to reimburse owners of the Toyota 4-Runner for costs incurred to identify and repair this defect.

COMPLAINT

Ford recalls 2006-10 Ford Edge and 08-10 Lincoln MKX vehicles over fuel leaks caused by salt water exposure

Ford-Logo

Ford Motor Company is recalling certain model year 2009-2010 Ford Edge vehicles manufactured September 11, 2008, to July 1, 2010, and Lincoln MKX vehicles manufactured September 23, 2008, to July 1, 2010, originally sold in, or currently registered in, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin and the District of Columbia. Due to corrosion from salt water exposure such as from road salt use, the affected vehicles may leak fuel from the fuel tank seam weld under the tank mounting reinforcement brackets.

A fuel leak in the presence of an ignition source increases the risk of a fire.

Approximately 110,000 vehicles are affected by the recall.

Ford will notify owners, and dealers will inspect the vehicles and either clean and treat the fuel tank with a corrosion preventative or replace the tank, free of charge. The recall is expected to begin December 14, 2015

Subaru recalls vehicles for excessive corrosion in brake lines

Subaru of America, Inc. is recalling certain model year 2005-2009 Outback and Legacy, 2008-2011 Impreza and 2008-2014 Impreza WRX/STI, and 2009-2013 Forester vehicles, currently, or formerly, registered in Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin and the District of Columbia. Salt water could splash on the brake lines through a gap in the fuel tank protector, resulting in excessive corrosion of the brake lines.

Brake line corrosion may result in brake fluid leakage. Fluid leakage may result in longer distances being required to slow or stop the vehicle, increasing the risk of a crash.

Subaru will notify owners, and dealers will test the brake system by depressing the brake pedal and inspecting for brake fluid leaks. If no brake fluid seepage is observed, the affected areas will be rustproofed with anti-corrosion wax. If brake fluid seepage is observed, the brake lines will be replaced followed by rustproofing with anti-corrosion wax. These services will be performed free of charge.

The recall involves 660,238 vehicles.

Yamaha Sued Over Dry Exhaust Defect In Its Model Year 2000-2005 Yamaha F225 Four Stroke Outboard Boat Motors

yamaha

 

The lawsuit is brought on behalf of a class of current and former owners of Model Year 2000-2005 Yamaha F225 four stroke outboard boat motors (“Class Motors”) with defective dry exhaust components (the “Defect” or “Dry Exhaust Defect”).

This action arises from Defendant’s failure, despite its longstanding knowledge of a material design defect, to disclose to Plaintiff and other consumers that the Class Motors are predisposed to corrosion-based failure. The Dry Exhaust Defect—which frequently manifests shortly after the limited warranty period has expired—will inevitably cause a substantial portion of the Class Motors to fail. Once the Dry Exhaust Defect manifests in the Class Motors, they must undergo expensive repairs to remain operable.

Significantly, when the Dry Exhaust Defect occurs it poses a safety risk to the operator and passengers of the boat. The Dry Exhaust Defect can cause reduced performance and maneuverability, as well as a significant risk of breakdown at sea, with all the risks inherent in such situations.

The complaint claims that not only did Yamaha actively conceal the fact that particular components within the dry exhaust system are defective (and require costly repairs to fix), they did not reveal that the existence of this defect would diminish the intrinsic and resale value of the Class Motors and lead to the safety concerns described within.

For customers with vehicles within the written warranty period (which extends for 3 years), it appears Yamaha has made repairs following failures. However, because gaining access to the corroding area often costs several hundred dollars and it is not visible without this expensive effort, these engines are corroding during the warranty period unbeknownst to many thousands of Class Motor owners.

Yamaha has refused to take any action to correct this concealed design defect when it manifests in Class Motors outside the warranty period, despite the fact that substantial corrosion—leading directly to the failures—is occurring during the warranty period. Since the Dry Exhaust Defect typically manifests shortly outside of the warranty period for the Class Motors

Despite notice and knowledge of the Dry Exhaust Defect from the numerous consumer complaints it has received, information received from dealers, an article published by USBoat, and its own internal records, Yamaha has not recalled the Class Motors to repair the Dry Exhaust Defect, offered its customers a suitable repair or replacement free of charge, or offered to reimburse its customers who have incurred out of pocket expenses to repair the defect.

As a result of Defendant’s unfair, deceptive and/or fraudulent business practices, owners of Class Motors, including Plaintiff, have suffered an ascertainable loss of money and/or property and/or loss in value. The unfair and deceptive trade practices committed by Defendant were conducted in a manner giving rise to substantial aggravating circumstances.