Quantcast

Settlement reached for 87-year-old man arrested after his OnStar system falsely reported his car as stolen

PENNSYLVANIA RECORD

Friday, November 22, 2024

Settlement reached for 87-year-old man arrested after his OnStar system falsely reported his car as stolen

Federal Court
Lisapupolenihan

Lenihan | PA Courts

PITTSBURGH – An 87-year-old Western Pennsylvania man with a heart condition who alleged he was detained by police on suspicion of being a car thief, because the OnStar system in his vehicle erroneously reported it to authorities as stolen, has conditionally settled his claims with the security company.

Robert Masterson Sr. of Bairdford first filed suit in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas on Dec. 2, 2020 versus OnStar, LLC, (c/o Corporation Service Company) of Harrisburg.

OnStar was engaged in the business of providing subscription-based, in-vehicle service and telematics on select, properly-equipped General Motors vehicles. The in-vehicle service and telematics provided by defendant OnStar, LLC, included a service defendant marketed and sold as “stolen vehicle assistance.”

Plaintiff Robert Masterson Sr. was the operator of a 2017 Chevrolet Equinox motor vehicle, which was a subscriber to the OnStar service. The stolen vehicle service would provide the make, model, color, vehicle identification number and satellite tracking information to law enforcement authorities, to assist in pursuit and recovery of the vehicle, plus the apprehension of the unlawful driver.

“The incident which gives rise to this complaint occurred on April 20, 2020 on East Jefferson Street in Butler, at which time and place plaintiff was lawfully operating his vehicle,” the suit stated.

“On the above date, an officer of the Butler Township Police Department, and one or more officers of the Butler City Police Department, utilizing sirens and lights on Butler Township and Butler City patrol cars, executed a traffic stop of plaintiff’s vehicle while it was being lawfully operated by plaintiff at the above-described location.”

The stop was initiated based upon a stolen vehicle assistance report provided by OnStar, which stated the plaintiff’s vehicle had been stolen in Chicago and was now in Butler Township. The plaintiff said that report was false.

“The police officers exited their police vehicles, drew firearms and while in a shooting stance, demanded that plaintiff ‘show his hands’ out of the driver’s window of plaintiff’s vehicle. Plaintiff was removed from his vehicle by multiple police officers, still with their weapons drawn, and made to stand alongside his vehicle with his hands on the roof, while he was subjected to a police search,” per the suit.

“For the next 20 minutes, the plaintiff remained under police detention outside of plaintiff’s vehicle, on the side of a public highway, and in full view of passing motorists and the public at large.”

About 30 minutes later, Masterson was advised by a Butler Township police officer that he was an innocent victim and had been detained due to a false stolen vehicle report provided by OnStar. Masterson was then released from custody, but had to wait for OnStar to unlock the vehicle ignition so that he could leave the scene.

“At the time, plaintiff was 87 years of age and suffered from a cardiac condition commonly known as angina,” the suit said, a condition which was greatly aggravated by the circumstances of the subject incident and impacted Masterson’s health.

OnStar’s attorney filed a notice to remove the case to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on Jan. 12.

“According to the complaint, plaintiff is a resident of the State of Pennsylvania. At all times relevant hereto, including the commencement of the action and at the time of removal, defendant, OnStar, LLC, is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in the state of Michigan. Therefore, there is diversity of citizenship amongst the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(a)(1),” the notice explained.

“The complaint fails to identify a specific dollar amount being sought and simply notes that plaintiff is seeking damages ‘in a sum greater than $35,000.’ The complaint, however, claims the following damages as a result of his injuries: “Great pain, suffering, inconvenience, embarrassment, humiliation and mental anguish;’ ‘He has been and will be required to expend large sums of money for surgical and medical attention, hospitalization, medical supplies, surgical appliances, medicines, and attendant services;’ ‘His general health, strength and vitality have been impaired;’ and ‘He has been unable to enjoy the ordinary pleasures of life.”

Due to diversity of citizenship between the parties and the damages at issue, OnStar’s counsel felt there was sufficient justification to send the case to federal court.

UPDATE

On Aug. 12, U.S. Magistrate Judge Lisa Pupo Lenihan explained that the case had been preliminarily settled, but the Court would retain jurisdiction over the matter while the settlement was being finalized.

“Counsel called to inform the Court this case has settled. The only matters remaining are the payment of the settlement proceeds and the submission of a stipulation for dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a). It appears that there is no further action required by the court at this time. Therefore, it is ordered this 12th day of August, 2021, that the Clerk of Court mark this case closed,” Lenihan said.

“Nothing contained in this order shall be considered a dismissal or disposition of this action. Should further proceedings be required, either party may file a motion to re-open or this case will proceed as if this order had not been entered. It is further ordered that the Court expressly retains jurisdiction in this matter to consider any issue arising during the period when settlement is being finalized including, but not limited to, enforcing settlement.”

Prior to settlement and for multiple counts of negligence, the plaintiff was seeking damages in excess of $35,000, plus a trial by jury.

The plaintiff was represented by Edward J. Balzarini Jr. and Michael Balzarini of Balzarini & Watson, in Pittsburgh.

The defendant was represented by Brian L. Wolensky of Ricci Tyrrell Johnson & Grey, in Philadelphia.

U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania case 2:21-cv-00045

Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas case GD-20-012232

From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com

More News