Defective Products

Honda Civic Air Conditioning Defect Lawsuits

Defective Air Conditioning

Lieff Cabraser is investigating alleged defects in the air conditioning systems of 2016-2019 Honda Civic vehicles. Reports indicate that the air conditioning systems in certain Honda vehicles do not function properly during ordinary and expected driving conditions. Complaints allege the 2016-2019 Civics have a common defect in their condenser and compressor that leaves the vehicles’ climate control air cooling non-operational.

Without working air conditioning, the Civics occupants are not only uncomfortable in warm conditions, but the failed cooling system can create a significant safety hazard, including as the vehicle’s windshield accumulates moisture during driving. Reports further allege that the malfunction in the Civic A/C condensers and compressors create risks for damage to other components in the vehicles’ systems.

One lawsuit claims the 2016-2019 Honda Civics were negligently designed and manufactured by Honda in that the air conditioning condenser is placed in a position that is highly vulnerable to contact from rocks, pebbles, and other normal road debris during ordinary driving on paved roadways. Despite the clear vulnerability and exposure of the condenser to such contact from debris, Honda allegedly failed to design the Civics in a manner that would provide protection to the condenser, such as with a simple guard or grill, or with materials that could withstand the ongoing debris contact.

Owners and lessees complain that despite the widespread nature of the problem, Honda refuses to cover condenser repairs under vehicle warranties.

Contact a Honda Civic Defect Lawyer at Lieff Cabraser

If you own a 2016-2019 Honda Civic and have experienced problems with your air conditioning system, please contact us today about your experience. You can use the form below to contact an automotive defect attorney at Lieff Cabraser.

The information you provide will help us secure justice and compensation for all affected Honda Civic owners and lessees. 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

How did you find our site?

Are you currently represented by an attorney?

Have you had an AC repair performed?

How much did the repair cost you?

Approximately how many miles were on the vehicle at the time it was repaired?

Was the vehicle still under warranty at the time of the repair?

Was the repair paid for by Honda under warranty?

Would you be interested in learning more about becoming involved as a representative of the class?

Additional information:

Please sign me up for your Consumer Law newsletter. Yes

Mercedes-Benz Headrest Restraint Safety Defect

cars in crowded traffic

Lieff Cabraser is investigating claims by Mercedes-Benz vehicle owners that the headrests and active head restraints in their vehicles are malfunctioning, deploying without reason when there is no crash or similar event. The Mercedes Benz headrests are intended to operate by moving aggressively forward in the event of a rear-end crash to minimize whiplash injuries. But, due to what some owners are alleging are defects in the headrests, they are going off at random. When deployed unexpectedly and without a crash, the headrest systems can strike the occupant’s head and neck, presenting a risk of injury and driver distraction.

The headrest systems in question are believed to be present in Mercedes C Class and Mercedes E Class models, and are believed to have been in use since the 2004 model year continuing up to the present.

Contact a Vehicle Defect Lawyer at Lieff Cabraser

If you own a 2004 or later Mercedes C Class or Mercedes E Class vehicle and have experienced the sudden random operation of the head rest restraint mechanism, or if you are concerned about possible sudden deployment of your vehicle’s head rest, please use the form below to contact a vehicle defect lawyer at Lieff Cabraser. There is no charge or obligation for our review of your case, and the information you provide will help us hold Mercedes Benz accountable for any defects in their vehicles’ headrest restraints.


First Name (required)

Last Name (required)

Email address (required)

Street Address

City

State

Zip

Telephone

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 headrest problems you have experienced with your Mercedes:

Please sign me up for your Consumer Law newsletter. Yes

Caterpillar C18 and C32 Engine Defects Investigation

Wood chipper sprays debris

Lieff Cabraser is investigating widespread claims that defects in certain Caterpillar engines lead to repeated engine failures in C18 and C32 models. Complaints focus on the cylinder liner of the C18 and C32 Caterpillar engines. Owners and users indicate the cylinder liner is defective and cracks, letting oil and coolant leak and mix together, leading to repeated engine failures.

The Caterpillar engines are used in generators, industrial engines, locomotive engines, marine engines, OEM power packs, petroleum oil rig engines, truck engines, and mulch chopping trucks. Losses encountered by users of the allegedly defective engines include high repair costs (which can easily hit $50,000 or more for repairs and labor), machine down time, reduction in device market value, and related business losses.

Contact a Product Defect Lawyer at Lieff Cabraser

If you or your business own vehicles or devices with Caterpillar C18 or Caterpillar C32 engines and you have experienced engine problems you suspect might be related to defects in the cylinder liner, we would welcome the opportunity to speak with you about your experiences. There is no charge or obligation for our review of your case, and the information you provide will help us hold Caterpillar accountable for any defects in its C18 and C32 engines.


First Name (required)

Last Name (required)

Email address (required)

Street Address

City

State

Zip

Telephone

How did you find our site?

Are you currently represented by an attorney?

Please describe any problems you have encountered with a Caterpillar C18 or C32 engine:

Are you willing to be a class representative? Yes Yes
Please sign me up for your Consumer Law newsletter. Yes Yes


Boats, Choppers, and Other Equipment with Caterpillar C18 and Caterpillar C32 Engine Problems

Caterpillar C18 and Caterpillar C32 engines are widely used in boats and yachts from multiple companies, such that owners and users are reporting:

  • Astonda engine problems and failures;
  • Azimut engine problems and failures;
  • Hampton engine problems and failures;
  • Maritimo engine problems and failures;
  • Hinckley Talaria engine problems and failures;
  • Hatteras engine problems and failures;
  • Canados engine problems and failures;
  • Princess engine problems and failures;
  • Horizon engine problems and failures;
  • Ocean Alexander engine problems and failures;
  • Michael Rybovich engine problems and failures;
  • French Yachts Custom engine problems and failures; and
  • Viking engine problems and failures.

Users of Rotochopper products that include Caterpillar C18 and C32 engines are also reporting breakdowns, failures, and other engine problems.

EMCP 4 generators also include Caterpillar C18 engines in which users have reported breakdowns, failures, and other problems.

Some of the applications and uses of the C-18 engine are:

Aerial Lifts
Agricultural Tractors
Agriculture
Aircraft Support
Asphalt and Concrete Paving Equipment
Auxiliary
Blender
Bore/Drill Rigs (Mining Only)
Bore/Drill Rigs (Non-Mining)
Cementing
Chippers/Grinders
Chippers/Grinders (Non-Forestry)
Combines and Harvestors
Commercial Businesses
Communications
Compactors/Rollers
Completion/Stimulation
Compressors
Construction
Cranes
Crude Oil
Crude Production
Cruise
Crushers
Datacenters
Diesel Multiple Units/Railcars
Dredge
Drilling
Energy Utilities
Feller/Bunchers
Fire Pump
Fire/Rescue Trucks
Fishing
Forestry
Forklifts
Gas Compression
Gas Processing
Govermental
Harvesters
Healthcare(Non-Datacenters)
Hydraulic Power Units
Hydraulic Pump
Inland Waterways
Irrigation Equipment
Land Drill Fire Pump
Land Production Aux Engine
Land Production Aux Genset
Land Production Fire Pump
Land Production Prime Genset
Land Production Standby Genset
Landfill
Lawn and Garden
Leisure
Loaders/Forwarders
Locomotive
Manufacturing
Mining
Mobile Drill Rig
Nitrogen/C02 Pumping
Nuclear
Oceangoing
Offshore Drilling
Offshore Emergency Power
Offshore Fire Pump
Offshore Prod Emergency Power
Offshore Production Crane
Offshore Production Fire Pump
Offshore Production Power
Offshore Support Vessel
Other Agricultural
Other Construction
Other Forestry
Other Gas
Other General Industrial
Other Material
Other Mining
Other Mobile Earthmoving (Non Mining or Quarry)
Passenger
Pleasure Craft
Public or Civil Services
Pumps
Rail Maintenance Equipment
Rail Way Head End Power
Rental
Residential Buildings
Scrubbers/Sweepers
Shovels/Draglines
Skidders
Sport Fisherman/Charter
Sprayers
Surface Hauling Units
Tactical Vehicle
Trenchers
Trucks
Tug/Salvage
Underground Mining Equipment
Workover
Yard Jockeys

Ford F-150 Brake Failures

Motion blurred trucks driving on the highway

Ford F-150 Pickup Truck Brake Failure Investigation

Lieff Cabraser represents Ford truck owners in litigation over reports that hundreds of 2013-2016 Ford F-150 pickup trucks are experiencing sudden brake failures. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has received over 200 complaints from Ford F-150 drivers who say the trucks’ brakes suddenly fail without warning during driving. Drivers say the brake pedals suddenly push all the way to the floor without stopping the vehicles, and many have described the problem as a complete and total brake failure that can happen repeatedly. The F-150 brakes can apparently suffer total failure after as few as 26,000 miles on the road; this is the issue most-complained about by 2013-2016 F-150 drivers, and repairs can cost as much as $1,800. NHTSA received complaints from F-150 owners and drivers in 38 U.S. states.

We have successfully litigated and settled hundreds of class action lawsuits in federal and state courts, including dozens of cases requiring manufacturers to remedy dangerous vehicle safety defects as well as extending warranties, and refunding to consumers the costs of repairing or replacing the defective components. Working with co-counsel, we have achieved judgments and settlements that have recovered more than $4.7 billion in these cases.

If your 2013-2016 year Ford F-150 has experienced this braking problem, or if you want more information about the rights of owners and lessees of affected vehicles, please contact a vehicle safety defect lawyer at Lieff Cabraser today using the form below. The information you provide will help us hold Ford accountable for any safety defects in its 2013-2016 F-150 trucks.


First Name (required)

Last Name (required)

Email address (required)

Street Address

City

State

Zip

Telephone

How did you find our site?

Are you currently represented by an attorney?

Please describe any problems you have encountered with the brakes in your Ford F-150:

Are you willing to be a class representative? Yes Yes
Please sign me up for your Consumer Law newsletter. Yes Yes

GM and GMC Air Conditioning Failure Class Action

GM Air Conditioning Failures

Class Action Lawsuit Filed Against GM Over AC Failures

On January 31, 2018, Lieff Cabraser and co-counsel filed a consumer fraud class action lawsuit against General Motors Company in Tennessee federal court on behalf of all persons who purchased or leased in Tennessee certain GM vehicles equipped with an allegedly defective air condition system. On April 11, 2018, U.S. District Court Judge Matthew F. Leitman issued an order appointing Lieff Cabraser partner Annika K. Martin as Co-Lead Plaintiffs’ Counsel in the multidistrict product defect litigation.

The lawsuit claims the vehicles have a serious defect that causes the air conditioning systems to crack and leak refrigerant, lose pressure, and fail to function properly to provide cooled air into the vehicles. These failures lead owners and lessees to incur significant costs for repair, often successive repairs as the repaired parts prove defective as well.

GM Air Conditioning Failures Vehicle List

Cadillac Escalade & Escalade ESV 2015-2017
Chevrolet Silverado 1500 2014-2017
Chevrolet Suburban 2015-2017
Chevrolet Tahoe 2015-2017
GMC Sierra 1500 2014-2017
GMC Yukon 2015-2017

Core Claims in the GM Air Conditioning Failures Lawsuit

The claims center on what are reported to be bad welds in the original condenser units. The problems are worsened by what many owners report are GM’s acknowledged 10-12 week delays in the supply chain, such that many owners have been forced to wait two to three months for the repairs to be made. As summer temperatures in many regions soar into triple digits, this leaves Escalade, Sierra, Suburban, Tahoe, Silverado, Sierra and Yukon owners with vehicles they say are undriveable due to concerns about child, pet, and driver safety. While GM has reportedly recalled all of its previous faulty inventory stock of the affected parts, no vehicle recall has been issued for those drivers stuck with failing GM air conditioning.

“If you have one of these vehicle and the AC is still working, brace yourself as you will be encountering an issue sooner than later.” (RadiatorHelpline.com, June 2017.)

The complaint lists causes of action for violations of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act, fraudulent concealment, breach of warranty, and unjust enrichment, and seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, including an order requiring GM to permanently repair the affected vehicles within a reasonable time period, as well as compensatory, exemplary, and statutory damages.

Contact a National Vehicle Defect Lawyer at Lieff Cabraser

If you own one of the affected 2014-2017 model GM vehicles listed below and have experienced A/C failure or are concerned about imminent air conditioning failure in your SUV or truck, we urge you to contact us immediately using the form below to discuss your potential product defect case. There is no charge or obligation for our review, and the information you provide will help us hold GM accountable for any defects in air conditioning systems in their 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?

Have you had an AC repair performed?

How much did the repair cost you?

Approximately how many miles were on the vehicle at the time it was repaired?

Was the vehicle still under warranty at the time of the repair?

Was the repair paid for by GM under warranty?

Would you be interested in learning more about becoming involved as a representative of the class?

Additional information:

Please sign me up for your Consumer Law newsletter. Yes


 

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


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.

Exploding Samsung Top-Load Washing Machines

Samsung washing machine exploded

Lieff Cabraser represents owners in federal court in lawsuits over 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 over a year after purchase.

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

Contact us

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 case.


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


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.

Mercedes-Benz Air Conditioning Mold Lawsuits

Mold

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

Judge Denies Motion to Dismiss Georgia Mercedes-Benz Mold Case

On December 18, 2018, Judge Amy Totenberg of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia denied Mercedes-Benz’s motion to dismiss the vehicle mold defects case, finding that the plaintiffs’ had sufficiently plead their claims against the luxury vehicle manufacturer based on allegations that defective heating and air conditioning systems in a wide range of Mercedes-Benz vehicles accumulate mold and mildew that gets pushed through the vehicle cabins when the HVAC systems are operating, rendering the vehicles unusable for their intended purpose. Read a copy of Judge Totenberg’s decision.

New Lawsuit Filed December 2018 in Federal Court on Behalf of Mercedes-Benz Owners Nationwide

On December 12, 2018, Lieff Cabraser and co-counsel filed a larger, federal consumer fraud class action lawsuit against Mercedes-Benz USA and Daimler AG over owner allegations of defective air conditioning systems. Filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, the lawsuit claims the vehicles in question, which include numerous model years of Mercedes C-Class, CL-Class, CLA-Class, CLK-Class, CLS-Class, E-Class, GL-Class, GLS-Class, GLK-Class, GLC-Class, M-Class, GLE-Class, GLA-Class, R-Class, S-Class, SL-Class, SLK-Class, and Maybach 57 and 62, have a faulty design that, during normal and expected conditions, fails to properly evaporate or drain the accumulated system condensation, creating a rich environment for the growth of bacteria, fungi, mold, and spores, which then are blown into the passenger cabin when the AC System is in use. The mold-carrying air has a highly unpleasant noxious and mildewy smell that cause the vehicles’ passenger cabins to be unbearable and thus unusable for their intended purpose, and can also cause respiratory problems and aggravate allergies.

April 2018 Case News: California Federal Court Decision Denies Mercedes’ and Daimler’s Attempts to Dismiss Moldy Vehicle Air Conditioning Lawsuit

On April 16, 2018, Judge Terry J. Hatter, Jr. of the United States District Court for the Central District of California issued an Order rejecting defendants Mercedes-Benz USA and Daimler AG’s motions to strike and dismiss plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint in the litigation over allegations of defective, mold-harboring climate control systems in numerous Mercedes-Benz vehicles. The defendants had moved to strike the claim for damages under California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act and to dismiss the common law implied warranty claims and all of the express warranty claims, along with all amendments to the original filed complaint.

The case will now move forward. Discovery is already underway, and should move along more swiftly now, as this order moots some of the objections defendants have been using to try to delay the discovery process.

Georgia Federal Court Decision Rejects Mercedes’s Attempt to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Claims in Moldy AC Lawsuit

In March of 2018, U.S. District Court Judge Amy Totenberg of the Northern District of Georgia issued an order denying most of Mercedes’s arguments attempting to dismiss Plaintiffs’ putative class action against Mercedes over allegations of mold in Mercedes vehicle AC. At the same time, the Court confirmed the validity of plaintiffs’ claims that Mercedes-Benz misled its customers by selling them expensive cars Mercedes knew to have defective, mold-harboring climate control systems. Per the Court’s order, the case will now move into the discovery phase. In particular, the Court has asked the parties to consider how discovery already taken in the related California case (discussed below) can be applied in this case to save time and cost, and increase efficiency in the discovery process.

Second Mercedes-Benz Mold Lawsuit Filed in Georgia Federal Court in 2017

In May of 2017, Lieff Cabraser and co-counsel filed a class action lawsuit in federal court in Georgia against Mercedes-Benz USA on behalf of consumers over complaints that various Mercedes vehicles dating as far back as the 1999 model year through to the present have a serious design defect that causes the air conditioning system to accumulate mold and mildew, spewing extremely unpleasant odors throughout 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. Lieff Cabraser partner and case attorney Annika K. Martin is featured in this October 2017 WSB-TV news report alerting Georgia consumers to the Mercedes-Benz AC Mold lawsuit.

The vehicles at issue in this action include:

2004-2012 A Class2017 GLE Class
2008-2016 Mercedes C-Class2006-2016 M Class
2000-2014 CL Class2006-2015 R Class
2013-2016 Mercedes CLA-Class1999-2017 S Class
2003-2009 Mercedes CLKClass2003-2012 SL Class
2004-2016 Mercedes CLS-Class2002-2013 SLK Class
2003-2016 Mercedes E-Class2002-2013 Maybach 57
2007-2016 Mercedes GL-Class2002-2013 Maybach 62
2010-2016 GLK Class

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


2016 Mercedes-Benz AC Mold Class Action Filed in California

In May of 2016, Lieff Cabraser and co-counsel filed an earlier class action lawsuit against Mercedes-Benz USA also on behalf of consumers over the same AC mold odor complaints, involving various Mercedes vehicles dating back to the 2003 model year and continuing to the present that allegedly have the same serious design defect causing mold and mildew to accumulate in the HVAC system, causing extremely unpleasant odors to permeate the vehicles any time the air system is in use. Among other relief, this suit also seeks class action status and effective long-term repairs, along with monetary damages for affected Mercedes-Benz owners and lessees.

Allegations in the Mercedes-Benz Climate System Lawsuits

The lawsuits include 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 California 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.

 

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

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.

Mercedes-Benz Tele Aid

Non injury product defect

Result: $650 payment or $1,300 certificate for purchase of new car
Year: 2011

In re Mercedes-Benz Tele Aid Contract Litigation

Lieff Cabraser represented owners and lessees of Mercedes-Benz cars and SUVs equipped with the Tele-Aid system, an emergency response system which links subscribers to road-side assistance operators by using a combination of global positioning and cellular technology.

In 2002, the Federal Communications Commission issued a rule, effective 2008, eliminating the requirement that wireless phone carriers provide analog-based networks. The Tele-Aid system offered by Mercedes-Benz relied on analog signals. Plaintiffs charged that Mercedes-Benz committed fraud in promoting and selling the Tele-Aid system without disclosing to buyers of certain model years that the Tele-Aid system as installed would become obsolete in 2008.

In an April 2009 published order, the Court certified a nationwide class of all persons or entities in the U.S. who purchased or leased a Mercedes-Benz vehicle equipped with an analog-only Tele Aid system after August 8, 2002, and (1) subscribed to Tele Aid service until being informed that such service would be discontinued at the end of 2007, or (2) purchased an upgrade to digital equipment.

In September 2011, the Court approved a settlement that provided class members between a $650 check or a $750 to $1,300 certificate toward the purchase or lease of new Mercedes-Benz vehicle, depending upon whether or not they paid for an upgrade of the analog Tele Aid system and whether they still owned their vehicle.

In approving the settlement, U.S. District Court Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise stated,

I want to thank counsel for the … very effective and good work …. It was carried out with vigor, integrity and aggressiveness with never going beyond the maxims of the Court.

Dell Inspiron Notebooks

modern laptop notebook computer

Result: Settlement
Year: 2010

Carideo v. Dell, No. C06-1772 JLR (W.D. Wash.) Allegedly Defective Inspiron Computers Litigation

Lieff Cabraser represented consumers who owned Dell Inspiron notebook computer model numbers 1150, 5100, or 5160. The class action lawsuit complaint charged that the notebooks suffered premature failure of their cooling systems, power supply systems, and/or motherboards. In December 2010, the Court approved a settlement which provided class members that paid Dell for certain repairs to their Inspiron notebook computer a reimbursement of all or a portion of the cost of the repairs.

Trademark Notice

Dell and Inspiron are trademarks of Dell, Inc. These marks are used solely for informational and product identification purposes. Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, is not affiliated in any way with Dell, Inc.

Intuit QuickBooks Software

Abstract program code

Result: Free software upgrade provided
Year: 2009

Create-A-Card v. Intuit Allegedly Defective Software Litigation

Lieff Cabraser, with co-counsel, represented business users of QuickBooks Pro for accounting that lost their QuickBooks data and other files due to faulty software code sent by Intuit, the producer of QuickBooks.

In September 2009, the Court granted final approval to a settlement that provided all class members who filed a valid claim with a free software upgrade and compensation for certain data-recovery costs.

Commenting on the settlement and the work of Lieff Cabraser on September 17, 2009, U.S. District Court Judge William H. Alsup stated

I want to come back to something that I observed in this case firsthand for a long time now. I think you’ve done an excellent job in the case as class counsel and the class has been well represented having your and your firm in the case.

Trademark Notice

“QuickBooks” is a trademark of Intuit. The use of this mark and any other marks is solely for informational and product identification purposes. Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, is not affiliated in any way with Intuit.

Weyerhaeuser Hardboard Siding

hardboard siding

Result: Extended warranty and reimbursement for repairs
Year: 2000

Lieff Cabraser served as one of the Court-appointed Class counsel in consumer fraud litigation against Weyerhaeuser Company relating to its exterior hardboard siding. In Williams, et al. v. Weyerhaeuser Company, Civil Action No. 995787 (S.F. Superior Court), plaintiffs alleged that Weyerhaeuser hardboard siding installed on homes and other structures throughout the United States from January 1981 to December 31, 1999 was inherently defective and prematurely failed when exposed to normal weather conditions.

Plaintiffs further alleged that Weyerhaeuser was aware of the defects in its siding, but concealed the defects from consumers and marketed and sold the siding as a suitable exterior siding product.

On December 22, 2000, the Honorable Alfred G. Chiantelli of San Francisco Superior Court granted final approval to a nationwide settlement of the case. Under the terms of the settlement, Weyerhaeuser agreed to pay all timely, qualified claims made during a nine year claims program. There is no cap on Weyerhaeuser’s potential total liability.

Class members who make claims under the settlement will be entitled to an inspection by a Court-appointed, independent inspector, who will ascertain whether or not the siding on the Class member’s home has damage that qualifies under the terms of the settlement for compensation. Class members will then receive a check for their damages, based upon the total square footage of damaged siding, multiplied by the cost of replacing, or, in some instances, repairing, the siding on their homes.

Toshiba Satellite Pro 6100

modern laptop notebook computer

Result: Extended warranty and reimbursement for repairs
Year: 2006

Kan v. Toshiba American Information Systems

Lieff Cabraser served as Co-Lead Counsel for a class of all end-user persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired in the United States, for their own use and not for resale, a new Toshiba Satellite Pro 6100 Series notebook.

Consumers alleged a series of defects were present in the notebook.

In 2006, the Court approved a settlement that extended the warranty for all Satellite Pro 6100 notebooks, provided cash compensation for certain repairs, and reimbursed class members for certain out-of-warranty repair expenses.

Trademark Notice

Toshiba Satellite and Satellite Pro are registered marks of Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc, a subsidiary of Toshiba America, Inc. The use of these marks is solely for product identification and informational purposes. Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, is in no way affiliated with Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc., Toshiba America, Inc., or Toshiba Corporation.

Toshiba Laptops Screen Flicker

modern laptop notebook computer

Result: Extended warranty and reimbursement for repairs
Year: 2004

Lieff Cabraser negotiated a settlement with Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc. (“TAIS”) to provide relief for owners of certain Toshiba Satellite 1800 Series, Satellite Pro 4600 and Tecra 8100 personal notebook computers whose screens flickered, dimmed or went blank due to an issue with the FL Inverter Board component.

Under the terms of the Settlement, owners of affected computers who paid to have the FL Inverter issue repaired by either TAIS or an authorized TAIS service provider recovered the cost of that repair, up to $300 for the Satellite 1800 Series and the Satellite Pro 4600 personal computers, or $400 for the Tecra 8100 personal computers. TAIS also agreed to extend the affected computers’ warranties for the FL Inverter issue by 18 months.
Trademark Notice

Toshiba Satellite, Satellite Pro and Tecra are registered marks of Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc, a subsidiary of Toshiba America, Inc. The use of these marks is solely for product identification and informational purposes. Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, is in no way affiliated with Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc., Toshiba America, Inc., or Toshiba Corporation.

Menu Foods

Non injury product defect

Result: $24 million settlement
Year: 2008

In re Pet Food Products Liability Litigation

Pet owners nationwide filed a class action lawsuit against pet food manufacturer Menu Foods, Inc. Pet owners believe that there are thousands of pets throughout the United States who ingested Menu Foods’ products and as a result became ill and/or died, causing their owners to incur substantial emotional distress as well as veterinary costs and related expenses.

Plaintiffs’ Factual Allegations

The complaint alleged that Menu Foods sold and distributed pet food that contained toxic substances for animals, including wheat gluten, which can cause liver and kidney dysfunction and failure, vomiting, jaundice, loss of appetite, and other health problems, including the death of the pet.

The complaint also alleged that Menu Foods failed to adequately notify consumers of the danger of their contaminated pet food even after injuries to and deaths of pets were reported by their owners.

Menu Foods has admitted that certain of their products were defective and caused injury and death to household pets. Plaintiffs alleged that Menu Foods either knew or should have known that their products were defective and presented a serious risk to the health and safety of animals prior to their recall.

Proposed Class in the Menu Foods Litigation

The plaintiffs brought the class action on behalf of themselves and all persons in the United States who purchased or incurred damages by the use of pet food produced, manufactured and/or distributed by Menu Foods that was or will be recalled including that produced from December 3, 2006 to March 6, 2007.

Plaintiffs sought a court-approved and supervised emergency notice warning plaintiffs and class members to immediately cease the use of Menu Foods’ products, including the provision of information on diagnosis and treatment of injuries, and an immediate removal of all potentially harmful products. Plaintiffs also sought actual and compensatory damages and out-of-pocket costs, including reimbursement of money spent on Menu Foods’ defective products.

December 2008 Update

On November 18, 2008, after a full-day Final Approval Hearing, Judge Hillman issued an Order and 65-page Opinion approving a $24 million settlement with Menu Foods and denying all objections to the Settlement. These documents can be accessed here.

The settlement covers expenses associated with pet deaths and illnesses, including veterinary costs, time missed from work to care for sick animals, replacement pets, burial expenses and property damaged by sick animals. The settlement does NOT reimburse pet owners for their own pain and suffering caused by injuries to their pets. Pet owners who did not save all their pet food receipts or veterinary bills can still request up to $900 for undocumented claims.

Appeals have since been filed by two separate objectors contesting final approval of the Settlement, and these appeals will postpone the payment of claims. No payments may be made on eligible claims until all appeals are resolved. It is uncertain how long these appeals will take to resolve, and the timing of resolving the appeals is not within the control of the parties or their counsel. It is not uncommon for appeals to take several months or even years to resolve.

If you have already sent in your Claim Form and would like to confirm that the Claims Administrator has received it, please visit http://www.petfoodsettlement.com/ and contact the Claims Administrator. In the blank box labeled “Message,” state the following: “Please confirm the receipt of my claim and send me my claim number.”

The law firm of Heffler, Radetich & Saitta LLP has been selected by the Court as Settlement Administrator, and as such they are responsible for mailing out notices about the settlement to known class member and processing all the settlement claim forms for this litigation. The notice and forms they may send you in the mail are the same as those found on the website.

Trademark Notice

Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, is not affiliated in any way with Menu Foods, Inc., and any and all trademarks are used herein for informational purposes only.

Fleetwood Motor Homes

Non injury product defect

Result: $250 payment to class members
Year: 2003

McManus. v. Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc.

Lieff Cabraser served as Class Counsel on behalf of original owners of 1994-2000 model year Fleetwood Class A and Class C motor homes. In 2003, the Court approved a settlement that resolved lawsuits pending in Texas and California about braking while towing with 1994 Fleetwood Class A and Class C motor homes.

The lawsuits alleged that Fleetwood misrepresented the towing capabilities of new motor homes it sold, and claimed that Fleetwood should have told buyers that a supplemental braking system is needed to stop safely while towing heavy items, such as a vehicle or trailer. The settlement paid $250 to people who bought a supplemental braking system for Fleetwood motor homes which they had purchased new.