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.