Porsche 911 UK Enthusiasts Online Community Discussion Forum GB

Welcome to the @Porsche911UK website. Register a free account today to become a member! Sign up is quick and easy, then you can view, participate in topics and posts across the site that covers all things Porsche.

Already registered and looking to recovery your account, select 'login in' and then the 'forget your password' option.

IMS class action legal victory

PeterS

Fuji
Joined
1 Nov 2009
Messages
9,296
Here we go.

From Rennlist, too long to quote in entirety

¬¬¬UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL D¬ISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Eisen v. Porsche Cars North America, Inc. ) Case No. CV11-9405 CAS (FEMx)
___________________________________________)

Notice of the Pendency of Class Action Settlement and Hearing on Final Approval Order and Judgment

If you owned or leased a Model Year 2001-2005 Porsche Boxster or 911 vehicle in the United States you could be affected by a class action settlement.

A federal court authorized this notice. This is not a solicitation from a lawyer.

- The purpose of this Notice is to inform you of a proposed settlement of a class action lawsuit known as Eisen v. Porsche Cars North America., Inc. You are receiving this Notice because Porsche Cars North America's ('PCNA") records indicate that you may be entitled to claim the benefits offered by the Settlement.
- This lawsuit claims that some 2001-2005 model year Porsche Boxster and 911 vehicles experienced or may experience intermediate shaft ('IMS") related engine damage before or after their original Limited Warranty or Approved Certified Pre-Owned ('ACPO") Limited Warranty has expired. These vehicles are known as the 'Class Vehicles" and the individuals who owned or leased such Class Vehicles at the time they sustained such engine damage are known as 'Class Members." PCNA has not been found liable for any of the claims alleged in this lawsuit. The parties have voluntarily reached a settlement.
- Under the proposed settlement and subject to proof, PCNA will reimburse Class Members for repair or replacement costs paid due to IMS related damage in Class Vehicles.
- Your legal rights are affected whether or not you act. Read this Notice carefully.

YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS AND OPTIONS IN THIS LAWSUIT ARE EACH DESCRIBED BELOW
SUBMIT A CLAIM FORM If you have paid out of pocket costs for IMS related engine damage and you submit a valid and timely Claim Form, along with sufficient proof of the repair and that you incurred out of pocket costs for an IMS related engine repair or replacement, you may be eligible to receive a reimbursement payment. A properly completed Claim Form must be postmarked or otherwise transmitted by no later than Month xx, 2013 (90 days from mailing of Notice). If you experience an IMS condition in a Class Vehicle in the future, you may be eligible to obtain payment for the repair by promptly contacting PCNA and arranging for PCNA to inspect your vehicle in order to confirm that an IMS condition existed that requires such a repair
EXCLUDE YOURSELF If you ask to be excluded from the Settlement, you will receive no reimbursement or payment for a past or future engine related repair caused by the IMS as provided for in this Settlement. If you exclude yourself from the Settlement and you are a current owner or lessee of a Class Vehicle, the claims process and assistance for seeking settlement benefits will not apply to you. Excluding yourself is the only option that allows you to pursue your IMS related claims in a separate lawsuit against PCNA.
OBJECT You may object to the Settlement by writing to the Court and indicating why you do not like the settlement. In order to object to the settlement you must remain a member of the lawsuit"”you cannot ask to be excluded.
GO TO A HEARING You may go to the Settlement hearing if you wish to speak in Court about the fairness of the Settlement, and if you advise the parties of your intention to do so.
DO NOTHING If you do not submit a Claim Form, you will not get reimbursed through this Settlement for money you paid out of pocket to repair engine damage related to an IMS condition. If you do not exclude yourself from this Settlement, you will not be able to sue PCNA for any claims related to this Settlement and you will be bound by the rulings made in this case.

- These rights and options"”and the deadlines to exercise them"”are explained in this Notice.
- The Court in charge of this case still has to decide whether to approve the settlement. The reimbursements will be made if the Court approves the settlement and after appeals are resolved, if any. Please be patient.

WHAT THIS NOTICE CONTAINS

BASIC INFORMATION....................................... .................................................. PAGE X
1. Why did I get this Notice?
2. What is this lawsuit about?
3. Why is this a class action lawsuit?
4. Why is there a settlement?
WHO IS IN THE SETTLEMENT................................................................................PAGE X
5. How do I know if I am part of the settlement?
6. Which Porsche vehicles are included?
7. If my Class Vehicle has not experienced engine damage or engine replacement related to the IMS, am I included?
THE SETTLEMENT BENEFITS"”WHAT YOU GET.....................................................PAGE X
8. What does the settlement provide?
9. What if I had multiple IMS related repairs or replacements?
HOW YOU GET A REIMBURSEMENT"”SUBMITTING A CLAIM FORM.........................PAGE X
10. How can I get a reimbursement?
11. When will I get my reimbursement?
EXCLUDING YOURSELF FROM THE SETTLEMENT.................................................PAGE X
12. How do I get out of this settlement?
13. What am I giving up to stay in the Class?
THE LAWYERS REPRESENTING YOU.....................................................................PAGE X
14. Do I have a lawyer in this case?
15. How will the lawyers be paid?
OBJECTING TO THE SETTLEMENT.........................................................................PAGE X
16. How do I tell the Court that I do not like the settlement?
17. What is the difference between objecting and excluding?
THE COURT'S FAIRNESS HEARING.........................................................................PAGE X
18. When and where will the Court decide to approve the settlement?
19. Do I have to come to the hearing?
20. May I speak at the hearing?
IF YOU DO NOTHING............................................................................................PAGE X
21. What happens if I do nothing at all?
GETTING MORE INFORMATION............................................................................PAGE X
22. Are there more details available about the settlement?
23. How do I get more information?

BASIC INFORMATION
1. Why did I get this Notice?
Vehicle identification numbers ('VINs") were used to identify current and prior owners and lessees of model year 2001 through 2005 Porsche Boxster and 911 vehicles since those correspond to the date when a certain type of IMS was manufactured. The Court authorized this Notice because you have a right to know about a proposed settlement of a class action lawsuit, and about your options, before the Court decides whether to approve the settlement. This package explains the lawsuit, the settlement, your legal rights, what benefits are available, who is eligible for them, and how to get them. The Court in charge of this case is the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Judge Christina A. Snyder. This case is known as Eisen v. Porsche Cars North America., Inc., Case No. CV 11-9405 CAS (FEMx). The people who sued are called Plaintiffs, and the company they sued, Porsche Cars North America Inc. ('PCNA"), is called the Defendant.

2. What is this lawsuit about?
The lawsuit claims that some 2001-2005 model year Porsche Boxster and 911 vehicles experienced or may experience IMS related engine damage before or after their original Limited Warranty or Approved Certified Pre-Owned Limited Warranty has expired and that certain repairs were required or may be required due to such damage. If you own or lease or have owned or leased one of these vehicles and have experienced or experience internal engine damage which may be preceded by a loud unusual engine noise, this may have been caused by an unforced failure of the IMS.

3. Why is this a class action lawsuit?
In a class action, one or more people, called Class Representatives (in this case Bruce Eisen, Kymmberli R. Ureda, Lee Smith and Frederick Nelson-Bonebrake) sue on behalf of people who have similar claims. All these people are a Class or Class Members. One court resolves the issues for all Class Members, except for those who exclude themselves from the Class.
Etc
 
Good news for the many owners that have lost out financially on these cars. I don't think it's a done deal yet though as it seems the court is canvassing owners to get a view on what the settlement should be. Only covers the US, but if successful then this is a persuasive precedent that can be used in courts in the rest of the world, including the UK obviously :thumb:
 
I believe Porsche didn't fight this one particularly hard. Maybe they feel that the number of engines involved is not nearly as many as the forums and some vested interests would have the world believe.

A dark stain on their history however. The management of the time should have dealt with this one at the time. Not that it hindered their phenomenal growth and financial success. Or the onward march of the 911.
 
I am not a legal expert but it seems that this could be used to make a successful claim against Porsche GB. Note that PCNA have not admitted liability but have reached a settlement. But settlement is not without reason. Possibly the numbers of cars is small compared to the legal bills to contest the claim or prolonging the claim may reveal some possibly inherent design flaws that were either known to Porsche which they covered up (as happens in some clinical studies of new drugs found to have serious side effects after launch) or not known to Porsche at the time but emerged as possible design flaws as each IMS failure was investigated and common ground was established as to cause of failure.

If any forum member is a legally qualified person, I'd invite their comments on this matter with PCNA and possible implications for Porsche GB.
 
Good news and hopefully this can filter through and something similar apply in the UK at some stage.
 
I too am not a legal expert, but I agree with Infrasilver. I can't see PGB all of a sudden rolling over and taking a kick in the nuts just because some petrol head in the states with more money than the rest of us, decided to take the plunge and sue.

The faintest wiff of this turning into a global issue and I think Porsche would start to dig their heels in fairly tightly...
 
Interesting... I am not a lawyer (albeit studying the law in spare time). A few thoughts for what they're worth and more than happy to stand corrected by someone on here who is properly learned:

It certainly won't be binding for Porsche GB as US judgments aren't binding on our courts. I think therefore it would require a separate UK action which could, in theory, cite the American judgment as being 'persuasive' (but in no way binding) as long as the facts were similar. Assuming a UK court then ruled in favour there would be a precedent set in the UK and everyone with a similar set of facts could jump on it.

However, I suspect there would be an issue over the cause of action in the UK - ie the basis one would be suing on.

Firstly, there is no contract between the original purchaser (let alone subsequent owners) and the manufacturer as the contract is with the dealer - so one can't sue the manufacturer itself for breach of contract, only a dealer on the basis of fitness for purposes under the S14 Sale of Goods Act 79. So one would end up with lots of individual claims against various dealers but nothing nailing the manufacturer to the wall.

So to have a go (US style) at the manufacturer, I would suspect one is into the world of the Consumer Protection Act 87 - specifically S2 for damage resulting from defective products. However, S5(2) precludes the award of damages in respect of the actual product itself - ie one wouldn't be able to claim for the engine or the car, but you might be able to claim for the oil stains to your drive so to speak. So pretty useless for recovering the cost of an engine but good for personal injury or damage to others/their property.

So that would leave a potential claim in the tort of negligence, but negligence precludes claiming for economic loss which would include damage to the vehicle (same principle as above).

And for added fun, a lot of claims even if notionally successful would be caught by the Statute of limitations which would time out damages at six years. Or in other words, not much use for anyone who had a failure before 2007.

So all ways up, I would be surprised to see the UK following the US in a hurry...
 
Unfortunately, there is no such thing as a foreign legal precedent.

The case would need to be brought and won in this country before it had precedent here.
 
Technically that is correct and stating the obvious. However, in the absence of a legal precedent here the courts can use foreign cases as persuausive precedent and create UK legal precedent in the process.
 
GT4 said:
Unfortunately, there is no such thing as a foreign legal precedent.

The case would need to be brought and won in this country before it had precedent here.

He's right. And what is more, settlements are reached in the US to avoid the prospect of juries assessing damages, which doesn't happen here.

Roro said:
Technically that is correct and stating the obvious. However, in the absence of a legal precedent here the courts can use foreign cases as persuausive precedent and create UK legal precedent in the process.

er.. no. Precedent is precedent - ie. the law of England and Wales. Anything else might be persuasive if it came from a common law jurisdiction, but any English or Welsh Judge is just going to apply ordinary principles, and the idea of any third owner getting anything back from a manufacturer is wishful at best.
 
candida said:
GT4 said:
Unfortunately, there is no such thing as a foreign legal precedent.

The case would need to be brought and won in this country before it had precedent here.

He's right. And what is more, settlements are reached in the US to avoid the prospect of juries assessing damages, which doesn't happen here.

Roro said:
Technically that is correct and stating the obvious. However, in the absence of a legal precedent here the courts can use foreign cases as persuausive precedent and create UK legal precedent in the process.

er.. no. Precedent is precedent - ie. the law of England and Wales. Anything else might be persuasive if it came from a common law jurisdiction, but any English or Welsh Judge is just going to apply ordinary principles, and the idea of any third owner getting anything back from a manufacturer is wishful at best.

America is a common law system, and if I was bringing a case I'd bring it in the High Court, not some little Magistrates in England or Wales. The High Court would be able to apply it's own decision to any foreign case law put before it, unlike a lower court which will just follow the decisions of a higher court. Although yes I agree, the chances of a 3rd, 4th, etc owner getting anything here are slim...
 

Trending content

Forum statistics

Threads
126,794
Messages
1,473,634
Members
52,375
Latest member
Fantic156
Back
Top