Subaru Class Action Lawsuit Continues For WRX Owners

Subaru Impreza WRX and WRX STI owners claim the engines are failing due to piston problems.

June 2021 – A Subaru class action lawsuit is debated in a New Jersey courtroom as Impreza WRX and WRX STI owners argue that pistons, crankcase ventilation (PCV) and engine management systems cause ringland failures.

The Subaru class action lawsuit states that 2009-2018 Impreza WRX and WRX STI engines will fail at 60,000 miles if they should last at least 120,000 miles.

The class action lawsuit alleges that the piston rings are too brittle to handle the power of the engines. In addition, the PCV system allows an abnormal amount of crankcase oil vapors into the combustion chamber.

Impreza WRX drivers complain that the engines lose power and stall if the engines are stuck from overheating.

Driving the cars is supposedly dangerous because a stalled engine will cause the car to lose power steering and brakes.

All three Impreza WRX owners claim in the Subaru class action lawsuit that they paid thousands of dollars to replace the engines.

The class action lawsuit alleges Subaru knowingly withheld information about the defective engine pistons or piston rings in the Impreza WRX and WRX STI vehicles.

Motion to dismiss class action lawsuit against Subaru

In a motion to dismiss the class action lawsuit against Subaru Impreza WRX, the judge gave the go-ahead to dismiss a lawsuit under the Michigan Consumer Protection Act. Subaru argues the claim is pointless as auto sales are exempt from the law, and the judge agreed based on recent case law.

However, things did not go so well for Subaru regarding a negligent misrepresentation claim under Michigan law that states a plaintiff must claim he was “right to rely on information to his detriment” obtained without due diligence from one Debtors were created “. [the plaintiff] a duty of care. “

Subaru Argues Plaintiffs Fail To “Claim That” [Subaru] made any representations [the plaintiff] in the context of a sales transaction ”because“ he bought his car used from a third party ”.

In other words, Subaru argues because a plaintiff [Hinshaw] bought its used Impreza WRX from a third party, Subaru could not have given the plaintiff any misleading information.

However, plaintiffs argue that “the misrepresentations alleged by Hinshaw were set out in the owner’s manual and warranty and maintenance booklet of his class vehicle,” even if he did not rely on misrepresentations by Subaru employees.

Regarding Subaru’s manuals in general, the class action lawsuit alleges that the automaker has also negligently and recklessly misrepresented information in the WRX’s manuals by using incorrect engine maintenance and service recommendations.

The class action claims: “[t]The user manual and the warranty and maintenance booklet enclosed with class vehicles do not contain any maintenance or service information for defective engine pistons or piston rings of the class. “

According to the lawsuit, this failure to consider ringland maintenance resulted in the operating instructions being misleading because otherwise the manuals “have maintenance schedules that extend to 120,000.

In allowing the Subaru class action lawsuit to proceed, Judge Joseph H. Rodriguez ruled:

“At this stage of the dispute, the court must accept as true that Plaintiff Hinshaw checked the owner’s manual for his Subaru vehicle and relied to his detriment on the incomplete descriptions in the manual about the ‘service intervals’ for the engine pistons or piston rings. Plaintiffs cite facts that indicate that Subaru misrepresented information to Plaintiff Hinshaw even though he did not purchase a vehicle directly from Subaru. “

The court will allow plaintiffs to file a second amended complaint that includes only Plaintiff Hinshaw’s negligent misrepresentation claim.

The Subaru class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the New Jersey District – Amato, et al., V. Subaru of America, Inc., et al.

The plaintiff is represented by Kantrowitz, Goldhamer & Graifman, PC, and Thomas P. Sobran PC.

Comments are closed.