PHILADELPHIA – A U.S. District Judge granted in part and denied in part BMW of North America’s motion to dismiss a case concerning alleged defects in its luxury cars.
Stephen Hurley, Michael Wood, Randy Currie, Francis Taloricco Jr. and Renee Dougherty sued BMW, claiming it knowingly sold them defective vehicles. Specifically, they said an issue with the N63 engine made the car guzzle way too much oil. They sued for infringements of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, and breaches of express and implied warranties. They also said BMW violated the Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law.
Senior Judge Jan DuBois ruled on the case April 2 in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, determining the court had subject matter jurisdiction as the plaintiffs sought compensation for the full contract prices they paid for the cars, amounts between $47,901 and $77,866. BMW, therefore, hasn’t proved that the amount in question is less than the $75,000 threshold.
BMW also said the plaintiffs haven’t shown they’ve suffered an injury, other than inconvenience. But the plaintiffs point to “increased maintenance costs,” having to buy more oil, and the reduced values of their cars because of the defect, according to the opinion.
“The court concludes that plaintiffs have satisfied Article III’s requirement of injury in fact on the present state of record,” DuBois wrote. He made this decision with prejudice, ruling that BMW can make this argument again once discovery is done via motion for summary judgment, or at trial.
The court sided with BMW in deciding that Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law claims overlap the breach of warranty issues, as the state-based allegations include alleged “fraudulent representations concerning a party’s performance of a contract,” referencing the contract, according to the opinion.
The motion to dismiss the breach of express warranty claim was denied because the plaintiffs properly raised issue concerning the New Vehicle Limited Warranty. The same held true for the breach of implied warranty and merchantability claims.
While BMW said the statute of limitations ran out on the plaintiffs’ breach of express warranty and Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, DuBois pointed to BMW’s supposed attempt to conceal the issue, raising the question of when the plaintiffs would have first noticed the defect.
The plaintiffs’ arguments for tolling on the fraudulent concealment claim fell short because they failed to offer dates of discovery.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania civil action number 18-5320