The saga continues in regard to CP4 fuel pump failures as a federal judge has made a ruling about CP4 issues that Chevrolet and GMC truck owners are facing. Judge Terrence G. Berg certified seven classes of consumers in a lawsuit against General Motors accusing the automaker of knowingly selling diesel trucks equipped with defective Bosch CP4 fuel pumps, according to attorneys at Hagens Berman and Hilliard Martinez Gonzalez LLP.
The class-action lawsuit was originally filed on Dec. 2, 2019, and states that due to the defective Bosch part, the following affected trucks with Duramax LGH engines could experience catastrophic failure and lead owners to costly repair bills: 2010-2011 Chevrolet Express, 2010-2011 GMC Savana, 2010-2011 GMC Sierra, 2011-2012 2500HD 3500 Silverado and 2011-2012 2500HD 3500 Sierra.
According to experts, the affected vehicles’ CP4 pump design is fragile and fundamentally flawed in several respects, and incompatible with diesel fuel sold in America. Due to the lack of proper lubrication in U.S. diesel, the fuel causes metal shavings to build up in the fuel system and engine, leading to unexpected total engine failure.
In Judge Terrence G. Berg’s 53-page order, consumers’ claims were upheld under various state laws, and seven classes were certified for the states of California, Florida, Illinois, Iowa, New York, Pennsylvania, and Texas. The March 31, 2023 order also appointed class counsel, acknowledging Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Hilliard Martinez Gonzalez LLP and The Miller Law Firm P.C.
The court also upheld the claims of those owners who have not experienced the defect, but have still been harmed through purchasing the defective vehicle: “…even those who have not yet experienced a failure have adequately alleged they have been damaged by overpaying for their vehicles as a consequence of GM’s failure to disclose the problems with the CP4 pump.”
“We are pleased with the court’s thoughtful analysis of the issues and look forward to continuing the case into discovery to fully uncover the exact extent of what GM knew when it chose to sell these defective diesel trucks,” says Steve Berman, managing partner at Hagens Berman. “We believe GM has greatly endangered the lives of many.”
“Judge Berg left no rock unturned, and his thoroughness speaks to the ironclad strength of our claims,” said Bob Hilliard of Hilliard Martinez Gonzalez LLP. “GM knew what was at risk when it decided to market and sell this extensive line of trucks to the public, and now GM should be held accountable for its conduct.”
In outlining the claims addressed in the case, the order reads, “Plaintiffs intend to offer common proof—through the testimony of GM engineers, internal testing data, and GM’s correspondence with Bosch—that GM knew of the alleged design defect even before it began production of class vehicles. They also intend to offer common proof—through testimony by GM employees, GM’s internal warranty data, GM’s instructions to dealerships, and marketing literature—that GM failed to disclose the design defect and actively concealed it even though class vehicles immediately began failing in the field.”
If you own one of the affected vehicles, click here to learn more about what options are available to you.
If you are the owner of a Ford truck utilizing a CP4 fuel pump, unfortunately, things are not as cut and dried. According to legal counsel’s website, in a 65-page order, Hon. Bernard A. Friedman allowed the majority of claims against Ford to continue, commenting that in light of Ford’s pushback regarding the CP4 defect, “…the Court agrees with Plaintiffs that Ford does not address all the relevant allegations. …As Plaintiffs point out, Ford does not address a section of the SAC on fuel pump design… Accepting Plaintiffs’ allegations as true, the SAC plausibly alleges a defect. The documents appended to Ford’s response do not alter this conclusion.” The court upheld all claims against Ford related to economic loss, unjust enrichment, and key state consumer protection laws.
Judge Friedman also denied Ford’s motion to dismiss the case regarding merchantability. “Plaintiffs respond that dismissal is not appropriate because they plausibly allege that their class vehicles are unfit for providing safe and reliable transportation. The Court agrees with Plaintiffs,” the order reads, adding “…a standard road vehicle must be able to provide safe and reliable transportation and be substantially free of defects.”