Do You Have a Camaro Starter Lawsuit?
If you have purchased a Camaro and discovered that the starter is defective, you may wish to file a lawsuit to get the company to fix the problem. You may be entitled to compensation for your loss, but in a class action, the relief you receive is often inadequate. If you have a Camaro Starter issue, you may want to contact a private attorney to investigate your options. In some cases, a private attorney can obtain more money for you than the class action could.
Class-action lawsuit filed against General Motors over defective starters
A class-action lawsuit filed against General Motors for defective Camaro starters aims to remedy these problems. GM knowingly sold Camaros with defective starters without properly disclosing them to buyers. The lawsuit claims that the defect leads to significant damage, including meltdown of starter wires, fuses, and the fuse box, as well as the shortening of battery life.
Although GM is well aware of the defect, the company has done little to inform customers of the problem. A class action suit against GM over defective Camaro starters does not mean that you will receive the same amount of money as a private attorney. The company has the option to lower your compensation by retaining a private attorney if you are not satisfied with GM’s response. While most of the consumer protection claims filed by the plaintiffs survived, the judge ruled that certain claims, including the ones filed by Camaro owners, failed. The judge dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act because they took too long to file the lawsuit.
Claims: GM knew about the problem
A lawsuit alleges that a defect in the starting system in 2010-present Chevrolet Camaros has caused many to experience issues starting. The lawsuit seeks to force General Motors to recall the cars and reimburse owners for their repair costs. In this case, more people are needed to make the case stronger. However, it is not clear how long GM knew about the problem and how to address it.
However, the ignition switch in the Camaro was not related to the ignition switch in the Cobalt and Saturn Ion, which were recalled earlier this year. The ignition switch defect in the Cobalt was first discovered by GM engineers in 2002, but GM didn’t notify consumers until late last year. GM also said it was aware of three accidents involving Camaros and recalled them.
GM’s failure to install heat shields properly
A lawsuit alleging GM’s failure to properly install heat shields on Camaro starters is gaining steam. Eight plaintiffs say GM’s Camaro starters are defective and the heat they receive damages the wiring and starters. A Camaro owner who is experiencing this problem may be stuck with thousands of dollars in repairs. GM dealers will likely blame the problems on bad batteries.
The plaintiffs say GM knew of the defect and sold the cars with no defects disclosures. The lawsuit alleges that GM sold the cars despite the failure to install heat shields on the starter. This defect can cause extreme heat build-up in the starter, shorten battery life, and damage fuses. GM has been aware of the problem since 2010 and instructed dealers to install the heat shield correctly during the warranty period.
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act claims dismissed
A judge has dismissed several Magnuson-Moss Warranty Claim claims filed by Chevy Camaro owners. A judge ruled that the Camaro starter lawsuit is too small to be considered a class action suit under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. The act requires that a plaintiff have at least 100 claims before the court can rule on a case. Currently, there are only eight plaintiffs in the lawsuit.
The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Protection Act is a law that protects consumers who purchase faulty products. It prevents manufacturers from misleading consumers and prevents them from claiming that their products were defective when they were actually in good condition. The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act also protects consumers from deceptive practices, including warranties that cover defects in a specific car part.
GM’s argument that some owners took too long to file
GM must face a class action lawsuit alleging that the company misrepresented the problem of its defective starter, and in some cases failed to repair a vehicle within the warranty period. In Delaware federal court, a judge cut some of the claims against the carmaker, citing late filing. Judge Stephanos Bibas, a member of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, upheld a summary judgment that the automaker must face the majority of claims under consumer protection laws.
The automaker argues that all claims should be dismissed because the express warranty covers only material defects and workmanship, not design defects. However, the judge disagreed with GM, saying that customers expect a safe vehicle, and did not dismiss other claims. The plaintiffs’ attorneys say that the judge’s ruling may mean the company will have to recall the defective vehicles and offer a fix.