622 F.Supp.3d 1132
M.D. Ala.2022Background
- Plaintiffs (Hurry, Goodwin, Wasdin) filed a putative Alabama class action against General Motors alleging an "Oil Consumption Defect" in GM Generation IV 5.3L V8 engines that causes excessive oil consumption, engine damage, stalling, and safety risks.
- Class Vehicles: certain 2011–2014 Chevrolet and GMC models equipped with the Generation IV LC9 engine; plaintiffs allege GM knew of the defect as early as 2008 and conducted internal investigations and issued TSBs and design changes before sale.
- Vehicles were covered by GM’s New Vehicle Limited Powertrain Warranty (5 years/100,000 miles); plaintiffs allege dealer repairs and TSBs provided only "band‑aid" fixes and that piston assembly replacement is the effective remedy.
- A related nationwide class action (Siqueiros/Sloan) was filed Dec. 19, 2016; the named Alabama plaintiff’s claims were voluntarily dismissed Aug. 26, 2020 — plaintiffs invoke that earlier filing for tolling.
- Individual facts: Goodwin (new 2013 Silverado) and Wasdin (new 2012 Silverado) experienced excessive oil consumption and engine damage; Hurry purchased a used 2013 Silverado and reports ongoing oil consumption. Plaintiffs allege they were not informed of the defect at purchase.
- Procedural posture: GM moved to dismiss; court granted in part and denied in part — certain claims dismissed, others allowed to proceed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Express warranty (Count 2) | Warranty covers defect; warranty remedy failed of essential purpose so UCC damages available | Plaintiffs never alleged they sought warranty repairs during the warranty period, so GM’s repair duty never arose | Dismissed: plaintiffs did not plead seeking repairs within warranty period and failed to show warranty failed of its essential purpose |
| Implied warranty (merchantability) | Vehicles were unmerchantable; plaintiffs are third‑party beneficiaries of dealer/GM warranties; tolling applies | Lack of privity; vehicle was merchantable because it provided transportation; claims time‑barred | Mixed: Hurry’s implied‑warranty claim dismissed (abandoned). Goodwin and Wasdin may proceed — court finds third‑party beneficiary plausible and statute‑of‑limitations defenses not established on face of complaint (fraudulent concealment and American Pipe tolling alleged) |
| Fraudulent suppression (fraudulent omission) | GM knew pre‑sale of defect, had duty to disclose, concealed defect and issued misleading TSBs; plaintiffs relied on omissions when purchasing | Failure to plead fraud with particularity; no pre‑sale knowledge; no duty to disclose | Denied: complaint meets Rule 9(b) as to circumstances, plausibly alleges GM’s pre‑sale knowledge and a duty to disclose under Alabama law; claim survives dismissal |
| ADTPA (Count 1) | GM engaged in deceptive omission/concealment; discovery rule/delay tolling applies | ADTPA claims barred by §8‑19‑14 because plaintiffs filed more than one year after warranty expiration | Granted (dismissed): plaintiffs conceded warranties expired by 2018 and did not respond to GM’s §8‑19‑14 argument; ADTPA claims time‑barred |
| Unjust enrichment (Count 5) | Alternative equitable relief for restitution if contract remedies fail | Existence of express contract/warranty bars unjust enrichment and adequate legal remedies exist | Denied (survives): pleading alternative theories is permitted at motion‑to‑dismiss stage; claim not dismissed now |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading must state a plausible claim to relief)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading requires more than labels and conclusions)
- American Pipe & Constr. Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538 (class‑action filing tolls statute of limitations for putative class members)
- Lisk v. Lumber One Wood Preserving, LLC, 792 F.3d 1331 (11th Cir.) (elements and approach for third‑party beneficiary warranty claims under Alabama law)
- Freeman v. NIBCO, Inc., 526 F. Supp. 3d 1112 (N.D. Ala.) (third‑party beneficiary and warranty‑repair duty analysis applied at motion stage)
- Ex parte Miller, 693 So. 2d 1372 (Ala. 1997) (doctrine on when limited remedy fails of its essential purpose)
- Hines v. Riverside Chevrolet‑Olds, Inc., 655 So. 2d 909 (Ala. 1994) (duty to disclose may extend beyond contracting parties given superior knowledge and foreseeable reliance)
- DGB, LLC v. Hinds, 55 So. 3d 218 (Ala. 2010) (fraudulent concealment tolling: elements and sufficient pleading)