Defective Products

Ford Mustang, Edge, Lincoln MKX and F-150 Throttle Body Failure Lawsuit

High speed highway traffic

Lieff Cabraser represents owners of Ford Mustang, Ford Edge, Ford F-150 and Lincoln MKX vehicles in litigation against Ford based on widespread complaints about and reports of throttle body failures in these vehicles that can cause them to spontaneously stall or suddenly decelerate to a near-idle speed, posing substantial and immediate dangers to the vehicle occupants.

List of Vehicles Affected by Ford ETB Failures

  • Mustang, model years 2011 to 2015 with 3.7L TiVCT engines;
  • Edge, model years 2011 to 2015 with 3.5L TiVCT and 3.7L TiVCT engines;
  • Lincoln MKX, model years 2011 to 2015 with 3.7L TiVCT engines; and
  • Ford F-150, model years 2011 to 2015 with 3.5L TiCVT and 3.7L TiVCT engines.

Nature of the Ford Owners’ Throttle Failure Complaints

A throttle body is a component in fuel-injected engines that controls the amount of air sent to the engine in response to the driver’s compression or release of the accelerator. In 2009, Ford began to equip its vehicles with Delphi Gen 6 electronic throttle bodies (“ETBs”). Since that time, various Ford models have experienced a rash of potentially disastrous throttle body failures. When the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (“NHTSA”) completed its preliminary investigation regarding affected Ford vehicles, it concluded that Ford had received 10,999 complaints directly, in addition to the 1,471 complaints filed separately with NHTSA.

Contact A National Ford Throttle Defect Lawyer at Lieff Cabraser

For more information, or to report a throttle problem with your Ford or Lincoln vehicle, please call us toll-free at 1 800 541-7358 or use the form below. The information you provide will help us hold Ford accountable for its allegedly improper conduct relating to throttle defects in the affected vehicles.


First Name (required)

Last Name (required)

Email address (required)

Street Address

City

State

Zip

Telephone Day

Telephone Eve

How did you find our site?

Are you currently represented by an attorney?

Please describe any problems you have encountered with the throttle in your Ford or Lincoln:

Please sign me up for your Consumer Law newsletter. Yes
Please leave this field empty.


Allegations in the Ford Throttle Defects Lawsuit

As alleged in the complaint, since Ford began equipping its vehicles with Delphi Gen 6 ETBs in 2009, various Ford models, including the affected vehicles noted above, have experienced a rash of potentially disastrous throttle body failures. Owners of Ford vehicles equipped with Delphi Gen 6 ETBs frequently complain that their vehicles spontaneously stall or suddenly decelerate to a near idle speed. These abrupt deceleration incidents often cause near accidents or life-threatening situations, such as when the incidents occur while driving in a highway passing lane or congested traffic where navigating a disabled vehicle to a shoulder or different lane can be extremely dangerous. The problem frequently manifests at highway speeds.

The complaint notes that the Ford Throttle Defect presents an unreasonable safety risk to affected vehicle owners due to the spontaneous stall and deceleration issues. Sudden deceleration incidents are particularly dangerous in congested areas, and on busy highways where motorists cannot easily pull over to the side of the road.

Though Ford implemented repairs to a subset of the affected vehicles via a 2014 “Customer Satisfaction Program” (CSP 13N03), the program excluded the affected vehicles noted above, leaving their owners and lessees with no support from Ford for their malfunctioning and dangerous vehicles. In fact, as further alleged in the complaint, Ford continued to sell a wide range of 2014 and 2015 model year vehicles with the throttle defect after the January 2014 implementation of Customer Satisfaction Program 13N03.

Plaintiffs’ research further indicates that Ford knew of the problems with the Delphi Gen 6 electronic throttle body since at least as early as 2009, but failed to disclose this material information to the owners and purchasers of the affected vehicles.

Among other things, plaintiffs’ complaint alleges Ford committed violations of deceptive and unfair trade practices laws, fraud, fraudulent omission, breach of written and implied vehicle warranties, failure to disclose information concerning the affected vehicles inability to perform as warranted, and unjust enrichment based on Ford’s selling and leasing at an unjust profit defective vehicles that had artificially inflated prices due to Ford’s concealment of the throttle defect. Plaintiffs seek injunctive and/or declaratory relief, including, without limitation, an order that requires Ford to repair, recall, and/or replace the affected vehicles, as well as damages, including compensation for the diminution in value of the vehicles.

Owens Corning Supreme Brand Roof Shingle Defect Consumer Class Action

Roofers fixing blistering roof shingles

Lieff Cabraser and co-counsel represent owners of homes on which Owens Corning “Supreme” brand roofing shingles are installed in a consumer class action lawsuit against Owens Corning Corp., Owens Corning Sales, LLC, and Owens Corning Roofing and Asphalt, LLC (“Owens Corning”) alleging premature failure of their Supreme shingles due to an inherent defect and that Owens Corning fails to stand behind its warranty.

Nature of the Owens Corning Supreme Shingle Complaints

Owens Corning markets its Supreme shingles with a limited 25-Year Warranty, leading buyers to expect that the shingles will have a useful service life of at least 25 years. To the plaintiffs’ dismay, and as alleged in the complaint, the shingles in fact are defective upon installation, and began to show deterioration like blistering and raised, uneven areas, as well as granule loss, as quickly as two years after installation. Instead of honoring the warranty, however, Owens Corning declines homeowner claims, leaving homeowners responsible for the costs of replacing their relatively new roofs after only a couple of years.

Contact a National Product Defect Lawyer at Lieff Cabraser

If you have a Supreme shingle roof that has undergone early deterioration or other damage, or a Supreme shingle roof you fear will undergo such damage, we welcome the opportunity to speak with you. The information you provide will help us hold Owens Corning accountable for any defects or improprieties related to the Supreme shingles, and there is no fee or obligation for our review of your potential case. Please call us today at 1 800 541-7358, or use the online contact form below.


First Name (required)

Last Name (required)

Email address (required)

Street Address

City

State

Zip

Telephone Day

Telephone Eve

How did you find our site?

Are you currently represented by an attorney?

Please describe any problems you have encountered with your Supreme shingles:

Please sign me up for your Consumer Law newsletter. Yes
Please leave this field empty.

Ford Transit Van Giubo Drive Shaft/Transmission Component Defects

Ford Transit Van Giubo Defects

Lieff Cabraser is investigating complaints from owners of 2015-2017 Ford Transit Vans about what they feel are defective “giubo” flex discs that lead to wrecked transmissions and huge repair costs.

The giubo discs (often misspelled as “guibo discs” and also known as flex discs) are flexible couplings used to transmit rotational torque forces from the van engines to the drive shaft. Owners cite giubo coupling failures and complain that the components are defective. When the giubo flex discs deform, split, and fail, they tear apart the van transmission and drive shaft, leading to repairs commonly in excess of $10,000.

Ford Giubo Flex Disc Failures

Contact a Vehicle Defect Lawyer at Lieff Cabraser

If you or your business own a 2015-2017 model Ford Transit Van and have experienced giubo degeneration, splitting, or other failure leading to drive shaft or transmission problems, we urge you to contact us to discuss your potential product defect case. There is no charge or obligation for our review of your case, and the information you provide will help us hold Ford accountable for any defects in the Transit vans and their flex discs.


First Name (required)

Last Name (required)

Email address (required)

Street Address

City

State

Zip

Telephone Day

Telephone Eve

How did you find our site?

Are you currently represented by an attorney?

Please describe any problems you have encountered with your Ford Transit Van Giubos:

Please sign me up for your Consumer Law newsletter. Yes
Please leave this field empty.


Giubo or Flex Discs

Giubo discs, also known as flex discs, are flexible couplings used to pass force from an engine to a drive shaft. They are commonly made of synthetic rubber whose malleability is designed to allow some angular misalignment while reducing driveline vibration in power transmission applications. “Giubo” is a contraction of the Italian word “giunto” for joint or coupling and the name of Antonio Boschi, the Engineer who designed the first flex discs.

Exploding Samsung Top-Load Washing Machines

Samsung washing machine exploded

Lieff Cabraser represents owners in federal court in New Jersey in cases focusing on consumer complaints about Samsung top-loading washing machines that explode in the home, causing damage to walls, doors, and other equipment and presenting significant injury risks. Users report Samsung top-load washers exploding as early as the day of installation, while others have seen their machines explode months or even more than a year after purchase.

If you are concerned about your Samsung top-load washer or have experienced unbalanced loads or serious washer vibration contact us about your case

We are eager to learn of your experience with your Samsung top-load washing machine, even if your washer has not exploded. Please use the form below to contact a product defect lawyer at Lieff Cabraser. There is no cost or obligation for our review of your Samsung exploding washer concerns, and the information you provide will help us hold Samsung accountable for these dangerous alleged product defects.


First Name (required)

Last Name (required)

Email address (required)

Street Address

City

State

Zip

Telephone Day

Telephone Eve

How did you find our site?

Are you currently represented by an attorney?

What model washer do you have?

When did you purchase your washer?

Has your washer exploded?

Comments or additional information:

Please sign me up for your Consumer Law newsletter. Yes
Please leave this field empty.


Further Info on the Exploding Samsung Washers

Beyond damage to the washing machines themselves, reports include descriptions of glass and other machine parts being shot across garages and laundry rooms at distances of over 15 feet, with consequent damage to other appliances, water heaters, and homes. Several Samsung top load washer owners report avoiding injury from the exploding debris and equipment pieces only by fortunate timing or physical blocking from other pieces of furniture or equipment, often mere moments after the owners had their heads or hands right by the machines.

Owners have reported Samsung washer explosions in regions as far-flung as California, Florida, North Carolina, and Texas, and owners have expressed concerns about warning other Samsung top-load washer owners to prevent serious injuries as well as similar property damage. One Texas owner reported an explosion so loud it could be heard outside the house, with a force so strong it knocked photos off the walls. Multiple YouTube videos recorded by Samsung top-load washer owners show exploded machines as well as damage and debris resulting from the blasts.

Contact National Product Defect Attorneys

If you have a Samsung top-load washer you are concerned may explode without warning, or own a Samsung washer that has already exploded, please use the form above to contact us. There is no cost or obligation for our review of your Samsung exploding washer concerns, and the information you provide will help us hold Samsung accountable for these dangerous alleged product defects.

Fitbit Heart Rate Monitors Fraud & Defects Lawsuit

Runners

Allegation: Fraud and misrepresentation

On January 5, 2016, Lieff Cabraser and co-counsel filed a fraud class action lawsuit on behalf of consumers nationwide against Fitbit, Inc. over complaints that heart rate monitors sold by Fitbit — the Fitbit Blaze, Charge HR and the Fitbit Surge — fail to accurately measure user heart rates. Complete the form below to learn more about your legal rights and help us hold Fitbit accountable.

On May 19, 2016, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint citing, among other things, a comprehensive new study conducted by researchers at California State Polytechnic University, Pomona revealed that the PurePulse™ heart rate monitors in the Fitbit Surge™ and Charge HR™ bear an “extremely weak correlation” with actual users’ heart rates as measured by a true electrocardiogram (ECG) and are “highly inaccurate during elevated physical activity.”

Fitbit Blaze, Charge HR, and Surge Heart Rate Monitors

Fitbit advertises its heart monitors as the most accurate wrist-worn wireless tracking devices on the market. Fitbit claims to have conducted “multiple internal studies to rigorously test” the accuracy of the wrist-mounted monitors.

The Fitbit Charge HR is an enhanced version of the Fitbit Charge activity tracker wristband that adds continuous heart-rate monitoring. Fitbit claims the Charge HR allows users to “maintain workout intensity, maximize training, and optimize health.”

The Fitbit Surge retails for about $100 more than the Charge HR. It is part smartwatch, part GPS running watch and includes all-day heart-rate tracking. Fitbit promotes the Surge as the “ultimate fitness superwatch” that allows athletes to maximize their training by keeping them “in the zone” and without “guessing” one’s heart rate.

Importance of Accuracy in Fitness Heart Rate Monitors

Heart rate monitors are used by athletes and others who need to reach or not exceed target heart rates. The use of monitors reporting inaccurate heart rates can lead to serious consequences.

As explained in a review of these devices by Wearable.com, “Heart rate training relies on exercising in different heart rate zones – each of which is a percentage of your maximum heart rate and stimulates different metabolic pathways and has different effects on the enzymes in the muscles. Once you know your zones, you can schedule workouts to make the greatest fitness gains without overworking your body, that is, if you are measuring the zones correctly.”

Consumer Complaints That Fitbit Heart Rate Monitors Are Defective Devices

As noted above, on January 5, 2016 consumers from California, Colorado, and Wisconsin filed a nationwide class action lawsuit against Fitbit, Inc. alleging that Fitbit’s wrist-based “Charge HR” and “Surge” heart rate monitors do not and cannot consistently record accurate heart rates during the intense physical activity for which Fitbit expressly markets the devices in widespread advertising. The suit contends — and expert testing confirms — that the Heart Rate Monitors consistently mis-record heart rates by a significant margin, particularly during intense exercise. Not only are accurate heart readings important for those engaging in fitness, they can be critical to the health and well-being of people whose medical conditions require them to maintain (or not exceed) a certain heart rate.

Prior to the suit’s filing, consumers complained on online review sites and other forums that the Fitbit heart rate monitors were flawed because they provided unreliable heart rates readings when user were exercising.

These complaints were made by athletes who simultaneously tested their heart rates using the Fitbit devices and other types of heart rate monitors. In numerous instances, the consumers stated that their FitBit device gave heart rate readings during their exercise routines that were 20-50% less than the heart rates measured by these other devices.

Submit Your Fitbit Complaint

If you purchased the Fitbit Charge HR or Fitbit Surge for monitoring your heart rate, we welcome the opportunity to learn of your experience with the device. We will review your claim for free, confidentially, and with no obligation on your part.

We will respond to your inquiry as promptly as possible. There is no charge or obligation for our review of your case. Please note that completion of this form cannot contractually obligate plaintiffs’ attorneys to represent you. We can only serve as your attorney if you and we both agree, in writing, that we will serve as your counsel.

First Name (required)

Last Name (required)

Email address (required)

Street Address

City

State

Zip

Telephone Day

Telephone Eve

How did you find our site?

Are you currently represented by an attorney?

What type of heart rate monitor did you purchase?

When did you purchase the device?

Where did you purchase the device (store name and location)?

Please list your date of birth:

Comments or additional information:

Please sign me up for your Consumer Law newsletter. Yes
Please leave this field empty.

About Consumer Law

State and federal laws provide consumers with remedies for products that are defectively designed or manufactured, or which do not perform as advertised. In many cases, consumers can benefit from such laws even after a warranty period has expired.

The cost for a consumer to hire an attorney and file an individual lawsuit against the manufacturer of a defective product is often prohibitive. The law, however, does not leave the consumer powerless.

A small number of consumers may file a class action lawsuit, representing all consumers who purchased the defective product. A class action suit can provide a powerful and effective means for consumers to compel a corporation to acknowledge its legal responsibilities and provide just compensation to the class members.

About Lieff Cabraser

Recognized as “one of the nation’s premier plaintiffs’ firms” by The American Lawyer, Lieff Cabraser has successfully litigated and settled hundreds of class action lawsuits, including dozens of cases requiring manufacturers to refund the cost of worthless and defective products or costs the consumer incurred in repairing them, to fix the defects, and to extend consumer warranties.

Trademark Notice

Fitbit, Fitbit Charge HR, and Fitbit Surge are registered trademarks of Fibit, Inc. The use of these trademarks is solely for company and product identification and informational purposes. Fitbit, Inc. is not in any affiliated with Lieff Cabraser Heiman & Bernstein, LLP. Nothing on this website has been authorized or approved by Fitbit, Inc.

Mercedes-Benz Air Conditioning Mold Lawsuit

Mold

Issue: Noxious mold in Mercedes-Benz vehicle air-conditioning units

In May of 2016, Lieff Cabraser and co-counsel filed a class action lawsuit against Mercedes-Benz USA on behalf of consumers over complaints that various Mercedes vehicles dating as far back as 2003 model years and continuing to the present have a serious design defect that causes the air conditioning system to accumulate mold and mildew, causing extremely unpleasant odors to permeate the vehicles any time the air system is in use. The lawsuit seeks class action status and effective long-term repairs, as well as monetary damages for affected Mercedes-Benz owners and lessees, among other relief.

The vehicles at issue in this action include:

2008-2016 Mercedes C-Class2010-2016 Mercedes GLK-Class
2013-2016 Mercedes CLA-Class2006-2016 Mercedes M-Class
2003-2009 Mercedes CLKClass2006-2015 Mercedes R-Class
2004-2016 Mercedes CLS-Class2006-2016 Mercedes S-Class
2003-2016 Mercedes E-Class2003-2012 Mercedes SL-Class
2007-2016 Mercedes GL-Class2004-2010 Mercedes SLK-Class

Allegations in the Mercedes-Benz Climate System Lawsuit

The lawsuit includes allegations of fraud, breach of warranty, and unjust enrichment, among other claims, and seeks effective long-term repairs as well as monetary damages for affected Mercedes-Benz owners and lessees. Owners note that the Mercedes’ heating, ventilating, and air conditioning systems (“HVAC Systems”) in question are predisposed to produce these awful moldy odors under normal use conditions that would not cause nondefective HVAC Systems to produce such odors, and have led many owners and lessees to pay for repeated nonpermanent “fixes” including replacements of cabin air filters and ongoing system flushes with disinfectant sprays — extra costs that Mercedes refuses to cover even while the vehicles were still under warranty.

The complaint further alleges that Mercedes knew of the HVAC system defect through repair data, replacement part sales data, early consumer complaints made directly to Mercedes (collected by and reflected in the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration’s Office of Defect Investigation), via postings on public online vehicle owner forums, testing done in response to those complaints, aggregate data from Mercedes dealers, and other internal sources. Yet as noted in the complaint’s claims, despite this knowledge, Mercedes failed to disclose and in fact actively concealed the HVAC system defect from consumers and continued to market and advertise the vehicles as “sophisticated,” “comfortable,” and “state-of-the-art” vehicles, which — with noxious mold odors rendering them undrivable — they are not.

2017 Status of the Mercedes HVAC Mold Case

In March of 2017, Senior Judge Terry J. Hatter, Jr. of the United States District Court for the Central District of California denied in substantial part defendant Mercedes-Benz’ motion to dismiss the lawsuit. Judge Hatter denied Mercedes’ requested dismissal relating to issues of standing, and order that the case proceed with respect to the majority of plaintiffs’ claims. The case is proceeding into the discovery phase.

Contact Lieff Cabraser

If you own a Mercedes-Benz vehicle and have experienced unpleasant odors coming from the air conditioning/comfort control system, we would like to hear about your experience. Please use the form below to contact an automotive defect attorney at Lieff Cabraser.

The information you provide will be important in helping us hold Mercedes-Benz accountable for the alleged defects in its vehicles and any fraud or other misconduct relating thereto. There is no charge or obligation for our review of your complaint.


First Name (required)

Last Name (required)

Email address (required)

Street Address

City

State

Zip

Telephone Day

Telephone Eve

How did you find our site?

Are you currently represented by an attorney?

What model is your Mercedes-Benz?

What year is your Mercedes-Benz?

What was the date of purchase/lease?

Where did you purchase/lease the vehicle?

Please describe any mold problems you have experienced with your Mercedes:

Please sign me up for your Consumer Law newsletter. Yes
Please leave this field empty.

Lexus Air Conditioning Mold Complaints

Mold

Issue: Vehicle air conditioner system mold problems

Lieff Cabraser is investigating consumer complaints about mold in the air conditioning units of Lexus vehicles. It has been alleged that the air conditioners are prone to developing mold, particularly in humid climates, and then giving off a bad/moldy odor when the AC units are turned on.

Complaints have included the following Lexus models: RX350, CT200H, ES300H and LS460.

Lexus’ website notes in numerous places that Lexus models are luxury vehicles, and specifically that “The pursuit of perfection starts at our core.”

Contact Lieff Cabraser

If you own a Lexus vehicle and have experienced unpleasant odors coming from the air conditioning/comfort control system, we would like to hear about your experience. Please use the form below to contact an automotive defect attorney at Lieff Cabraser.

The information you provide will be important in assisting us to learn of the full extent of the alleged defects in Lexus vehicles. There is no charge or obligation for our review of your complaint.

First Name (required)

Last Name (required)

Email address (required)

Street Address

City

State

Zip

Telephone Day

Telephone Eve

How did you find our site?

Are you currently represented by an attorney?

What model is your Lexus?

What year is your Lexus?

Comments or additional information:

Do you still have the broken window regulator in your possession?

Please sign me up for your Consumer Law newsletter. Yes
Please leave this field empty.

Chinese-Manufactured Drywall Litigation

drywall

Issue: Defective drywall products

Lieff Cabraser, with co-counsel, represents a proposed class of builders who suffered economic losses as a result of the presence of Chinese-manufactured drywall in homes and other buildings they constructed. From 2005 to 2008, hundreds-of-millions of square feet of gypsum wallboard manufactured in China were exported to the U.S., primarily to the Gulf Coast states, and installed in newly-constructed and reconstructed properties.

After installation of this drywall, owners and occupants of the properties began noticing unusual odors, blackening of silver and copper items and components, and the failure of appliances, including microwaves, refrigerators, and air-conditioning units. Some residents of the affected homes also experienced health problems, such as skin and eye irritation, respiratory issues, and headaches.

Lieff Cabraser’s client, Mitchell Company, Inc., was the first to perfect service on Chinese defendant Taishan Gypsum Co. Ltd. (“TG”), and thereafter secured a default judgment against TG. Lieff Cabraser participated in briefing that led to the district court’s denial of TG’s motion to dismiss the class action complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. That order is currently on appeal to the Fifth Circuit, but plaintiffs are hopeful that the district court’s ruling will be affirmed.

On January 14, 2014, in a parallel proceeding, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Court affirmed the district court’s finding of personal jurisdiction over TG, holding that the “assertion of personal jurisdiction here comports with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” The appellate court noted that although “China may not favor personal jurisdiction over its manufacturers,” given the nature of the global economy, “it is in everyone’s interest to discourage the manufacturer and distribution of defective products.” [internal quotation omitted.]

Bosch Front-Loading Washer Mold

washing machine

Result: $55 cash payment
Year: 2015

Lieff Cabraser represented consumers nationwide in a class action lawsuit against BSH Home Appliances Corporation. The complaint alleged that certain front-loading Bosch and Siemens washing machines were defectively designed and, as a result, accumulated biofilm, mold, mildew, and bacteria, and produced foul odors. The specific washers subject to the class action were the Bosch Nexxt (sold from 2004 to 2009), Bosch Vision (sold from 2009 to 2011), and the Siemens UltraSense (sold from 2004 to 2008).

On July 27, 2015, the Court approved a settlement of the class action lawsuit that provided a $55 cash payment to all class members who submitted a timely, valid claim. The deadline to submit claims was May 28, 2015.

Viking Windows

window

Result: Up to $500 payment to class members
Year: 2010

Cartwright v. Viking Industries Allegedly Defective Windows Lawsuit

Lieff Cabraser represented California homeowners in a class action lawsuit which alleged that over one million Series 3000 windows produced and distributed by Viking between 1989 and 1999 were defective.

The plaintiffs charged that the windows were not watertight and allowed for water to penetrate the surrounding sheetrock, drywall, paint or wallpaper. Under the terms of a settlement approved by the Court in August 2010, all class members who submitted valid claims were entitled to receive as much as $500 per affected property.