Alleged Ram 1500 Rear Cabin Window Water Intrusion Problem Sparks Class Action Lawsuit [DISMISSED]
Last Updated on October 3, 2023
Norman v. FCA US LLC
Filed: June 22, 2022 ◆§ 2:22-cv-11393
A proposed class action alleges 2016-2022 model year Ram 1500 pickup trucks suffer from a water intrusion defect.
Michigan
October 3, 2023 – Dodge Ram 1500 Cabin Leak Lawsuit Dismissed for Good
The proposed class action detailed on this page was dismissed with prejudice on September 30, 2023.
Want to stay in the loop on class actions that matter to you? Sign up for ClassAction.org’s free weekly newsletter here.
In a 51-page opinion and order granting FCA US’s motion to toss the case, United States District Judge Terrence G. Berg stated that the plaintiffs’ warranty claims were effectively hampered by “their inability to pinpoint the exact nature of the defect,” in particular because “different warranty periods apply to different vehicle components.”
The judge found that the plaintiffs’ fraud claims failed for similar reasons.
“As Plaintiffs cannot explaine [sic] what exactly the defect is, they cannot plausibly allege that FCA knew enough about it to be accused of concealing it,” the dismissal document states.
Judge Berg wrote that courts generally concur that plaintiffs who allege a breach of an express warranty must give the seller a chance to repair or replace the product. At the same time, courts are hesitant to allow express warranty claims to go forward when defects crop up outside of the warranty period, the judge added.
“Applying these principles to the claims of two [of the case’s four] Plaintiffs, their allegations are insufficient to withstand the motion to dismiss,” Judge Berg stated, noting that the consumers first noticed problems with their vehicles outside the warranty periods for the affected parts.
For the two other plaintiffs, who both received in-warranty repairs to their Ram 1500s, the court concluded that the consumers failed to plausibly allege that FCA US’s limited warranty “failed in its essential purpose” given they have not shown that FCA refused to perform warranty repairs or replaced defective parts with equally defective parts.
“Jones and McFarland do not plead a series of failed repairs,” Judge Berg said. “At best, they took their cars to dealerships once and received an in-warranty repair. They lack sufficient factual allegations supporting an inference that those in-warranty repairs were inadequate.”
More broadly, the judge relayed that the plaintiffs lack standing to bring Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act claims “based in the laws of states in which they have not been injured” and thus cannot represent a nationwide class of Ram 1500 drivers.
In light of the foregoing, Judge Berg dismissed the plaintiff’s Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act claims given that the consumers’ state-law warranty claims were “not properly pleaded.”
Get class action lawsuit news sent to your inbox – sign up for ClassAction.org’s free weekly newsletter here.
A proposed class action alleges 2016-2022 model year Ram 1500 pickup trucks suffer from a water intrusion defect that can cause foul odors, mold and mildew and electrical system disruptions, among other problems.
According to the 72-page complaint out of Michigan, the water intrusion defect exists due to inadequate sealing around an affected Ram 1500’s rear cabin window, rear brake light, or antenna or possibly a cracked rear window or frame. The case states that a Ram 1500’s rear cabin window, roofline third brake light and roof-mounted auxiliary antenna must be properly sealed in order to withstand weather conditions and prevent water and moisture from leaking into the cabin. Moreover, the body, frame and chassis of the truck must be designed to prevent excessive twisting or flexing, which could cause the rear window to crack or disrupt the seal, the suit adds.
When the water intrusion problem manifests, the lawsuit says, it can destroy the interior of a vehicle; leave foul odors, mold and mildew; cause electrical short circuits; and contaminate the rear-cabin airbag and propellant. Further, in addition to interior cosmetic issues, water intrusion into a Ram 1500 poses a serious safety risk to drivers and passengers who may have to inhale foul odors or mold caused by the problem, or be unable to use certain critical systems—push-to-start ignition, windows, locks, headlights, taillights, windshield wipers, climate control and navigation, among others—due to electrical disruptions, the suit says.
The case alleges defendant FCA US has known of the Ram 1500 water intrusion defect since at least 2016, based in part on upticks in complaints from drivers submitted to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and warranty claims to the automaker, among other indicators.
“Nevertheless, FCA has never disclosed the Water Intrusion Defect; rather, it actively conceals it,” the filing alleges.
Per the complaint, FCA has taken no action to fix the root cause of the water intrusion problem and refused to offer goodwill repairs to Ram 1500 drivers who have requested them. The case states that because the water intrusion issue typically occurs “during and shortly outside” of a vehicle’s warranty period, FCA’s attempts to limit its warranty exposure are “unconscionable.”
“Moreover, if/when FCA repairs vehicles presented for the Water Intrusion Defect repair, it removes and replaces defective parts with new, but equally defective, parts,” the lawsuit says.
The case looks to cover all persons or entities who bought or leased a 2016 to 2022 model year Ram 1500 pickup truck.
Get class action lawsuit news sent to your inbox – sign up for ClassAction.org’s free weekly newsletter here.
Hair Relaxer Lawsuits
Women who developed ovarian or uterine cancer after using hair relaxers such as Dark & Lovely and Motions may now have an opportunity to take legal action.
Read more here: Hair Relaxer Cancer Lawsuits
Stay Current
Sign Up For
Our Newsletter
New cases and investigations, settlement deadlines, and news straight to your inbox.
Before commenting, please review our comment policy.