GM class action lawsuit alleges Chevy Corvette LS7 V8 engines have valve guide failures.
January 13, 2022 – A class action lawsuit against Chevy Corvette engines has ended after a district court dismissed the lawsuit and an appellate court agreed to dismiss.
The plaintiffs allege that the valve guides in the Corvette Z06 LS7 engines were defective, leading to total engine failures.
The engine class action covers 2006-2013 Chevy Corvette Z06 vehicles equipped with LS7 7-liter V8 engines.
The plaintiffs allege that the valve guide clearances in the Corvettes are excessive, and GM allegedly did nothing to fix the engine problems. The Corvette class action lawsuit also says the automaker is telling customers that valve noise is normal for this type of V8 engine.
According to the lawsuit, GM knew the Corvette engines had valve guide problems because a test was created to look for guide problems. But the class action lawsuit alleges that testing was halted as soon as GM saw the results, which would potentially prompt investigations and Corvette recalls.
By allegedly covering up known problems with Corvette engines, GM was able to continue selling the cars to customers who believed they were buying safe vehicles.
Class action lawsuit against Corvette Engine dismissed
The district court awarded General Motors summary judgment over all claims by plaintiffs in the Corvette class action.
Seventeen plaintiffs subsequently appealed the district court’s decision, but the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the lower court’s dismissal because the plaintiffs “failed to present admissible evidence that their vehicles actually contained the alleged valve guide defects.”
According to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, a plaintiff must present evidence “so that a reasonable jury could reach any conclusion in favor of the [plaintiff] could make a judgement [her] favour” to survive a summary judgment petition.
The plaintiffs allegedly did not comply with the requirements because the plaintiffs only concede “expert statements” as evidence of an engine defect. However, the Court of Appeal found the statements to be inadmissible.
“Because Plaintiffs failed to timely serve the Expert Disclosures under Federal Rule 26(a)(2)(B), their Expert Statements are not admissible. The same experts cannot be used as rebuttal experts because the rebuttal statement relates “solely” to prove other expert statements “with the intent … to contradict or refute them.”
Since General Motors did not produce a refuting expert report, the plaintiff’s expert testimony was not admissible as rebuttal evidence, the court held.
The Chevy Corvette engine class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California – Estate of William D. Pilgrim, et al. v General Motors Company LLC – filed.
The plaintiffs are represented by Knapp Petersen and Clarke.