In re: General Motors LLC Ignition Switch Litigation
1:14-mc-02543
S.D.N.Y.Dec 28, 2017Background
- MDL consolidated suits over GM ignition-switch defect that could rotate from RUN to ACC/OFF and disable power/airbags; two "Category B" bellwether cases (Garza and Greenroad) involved accidents in which airbags deployed.
- Airbags only deploy if ignition is in RUN and has been in RUN for at least 2.5–3 seconds; plaintiffs concede deployment proves RUN at impact but assert a double-rotation (RUN→ACC/OFF→RUN) occurred, causing/exacerbating the crash and then allowing reinitialization before deployment ("Airbag Deployment RAR Sequence").
- Plaintiffs proffered three experts: McCort (accident reconstruction), Stevick (mechanical/failure analysis and torque testing), and Caruso (automotive safety systems). Experts offered that double rotation was theoretically possible and that vehicle symptoms were consistent with switch rotation.
- Court found plaintiffs presented no real-world evidence or experiments showing the full double-rotation-plus-deployment sequence has occurred; experts did not test or reliably reconstruct the entire sequence or the minimal timing needed for engine stall and airbag reinitialization.
- Court concluded experts’ double-rotation causation opinions rested on ipse dixit, speculation, and reverse-engineering rather than reliable methodology; excluded those opinions under Daubert/Rule 702 and granted New GM summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs can prove double rotation (RUN→ACC/OFF→RUN) occurred and caused/exacerbated crashes despite airbags deploying | Double rotation is possible and occurred in each case; experts’ reconstruction and vehicle/occupant reports support it | No admissible evidence shows the full sequence occurs in real world; experts rely on speculation and lack testing/benchmarks | Excluded plaintiffs’ experts on this point; plaintiffs cannot show causation and summary judgment for New GM granted |
| Admissibility of plaintiffs’ expert testimony under Daubert/Rule 702 | Experts are qualified and their opinions aid the trier of fact | Experts’ opinions lack reliable methodology, testing, data, and fit to the facts; they rely on ipse dixit | Court excluded experts’ causation opinions as unreliable and not sufficiently tied to facts |
| Whether theoretical possibility suffices for general and specific causation | Theoretical demonstration and consistency with symptoms suffice to raise triable issue | Theory alone is insufficient; need evidence of general causation before specific causation | Theoretical possibility insufficient; no admissible evidence of general causation, so specific causation fails |
| Whether obvious alternative causes were adequately considered | Plaintiffs’ experts focused on ignition-switch theory | Experts failed to explore obvious alternatives (e.g., icy road, torque-converter issues, driver actions) undermining reliability | Experts’ failure to consider obvious alternatives further supported exclusion of their opinions |
Key Cases Cited
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) (district court gatekeeper must ensure expert testimony rests on reliable foundation and is relevant)
- Amorgianos v. National R.R. Passenger Corp., 303 F.3d 256 (2d Cir. 2002) (factors for expert reliability and admissibility under Rule 702)
- Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999) (Daubert gatekeeping applies to all expert testimony, not only scientific)
- General Electric Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136 (1997) (courts may exclude expert opinion when too great an analytical gap exists between data and opinion)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary judgment standards; movant need show absence of evidence for essential element)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (standard for genuine dispute of material fact on summary judgment)
- In re Mirena IUD Prods. Liab. Litig., 169 F. Supp. 3d 396 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) (expert opinion excluded where based on untested, subjective observation rather than reliable methodology)
- In re Rezulin Prods. Liab. Litig., 441 F. Supp. 2d 567 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (specific causation opinions require prior showing of general causation)