Subaru Battery Drain Problems Cause Class Action Lawsuit


Subaru owners claim the batteries don’t have enough capacity, Subaru says the owners don’t have a suitcase.

March 13, 2021 – A Subaru Battery Discharge lawsuit alleges that Subaru Outback 2016-2020 and Subaru Ascent 2019-2020 vehicles are equipped with batteries that do not have enough capacity to power the electrical systems when the vehicles are turned off To supply electricity.

Several lawsuits have been filed regarding Subaru’s alleged battery drain issues, including Dalen v Subaru and Tomasian v Subaru.

These battery disputes were grouped into a class action lawsuit titled In re Subaru Battery Drain Products Liability Litigation.

Plaintiffs say Subaru owners must immediately start their discharged batteries and keep charging the batteries in order to keep the vehicles running. The lawsuit also alleges Subaru drivers may be stranded, forced to find alternative means of transportation, buy battery jumper cables, and pay for battery chargers.

The class action lawsuit claims that even if Subaru replaces the batteries under warranty, the replacement batteries also suffer from the same battery drain issues.

Plaintiffs complain that Subaru should have told them about the alleged battery drain issues before the vehicles were sold. These plaintiffs claim that Subaru knew about the alleged shortcomings in 2017 but withheld the information from consumers.

Subaru files a motion to dismiss the battery drain lawsuit

In its motion to dismiss the class action lawsuit, Subaru informed the judge that applicable law required dismissal of claims for lack of substantive jurisdiction or failure to specify a claim.

Subaru also reminded the judge that four plaintiffs have voluntarily dismissed their claims since filing the consolidated lawsuit, including plaintiffs Tomasian and Dalen from the above cases.

According to Subaru attorneys, the battery discharge lawsuit “is a classic vague and inconsistent” shotgun “making this claim[s] Multiple claims against several defendants without specifying which of the defendants is responsible for which acts or omissions or against which of the defendants the claim is made. “

The judge was told that plaintiffs lack claims for Subaru models that plaintiffs never owned or leased, but they can only pursue claims related to the Subaru vehicles they own.

Subaru argues that plaintiffs cannot represent owners of other vehicles that are equipped with different batteries, components and software files that are allegedly at the center of the allegations.

In addition, Subaru contends that plaintiffs have no authority to bring claims based on the marketing of products that they did not purchase.

The automaker also argues that claims made by non-New Jersey plaintiffs under New Jersey law must be dismissed, and the judge should also allegedly dismiss the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act claims that are based on the requirements based on jurisdiction.

According to Subaru, the law is clear:

“No claim can be identified in a lawsuit [in federal court] … If the lawsuit is filed as a class action and the number of named plaintiffs is less than one hundred. “

In the motion for dismissal, the judge was also informed that a breach of the guarantee is asserted in the lawsuit for battery discharge, which is based solely on alleged construction defects. However, construction defects are not covered by the New Vehicle Limited Warranty.

Subaru also informed the judge that several additional allegations must be dismissed based on applicable law, including implied warranty claims that are alleged to have expired and claims by certain plaintiffs for failing to give Subaru an opportunity to fix the issues.

Subaru advises that warranty claims are being made by nine plaintiffs. The automaker argues that the battery discharge class action lawsuit does not claim that plaintiffs have submitted their vehicles for repair, a necessary condition under warranties.

Subaru also argues that certain plaintiffs have no warranty claims for failing to give Subaru notice.

Finally, Subaru argues in its motion that plaintiffs failed to properly advance their fraud claims.

“Although the consolidated complaint relates to alleged general vehicle safety advertisements, TSBs and Internet postings, not a single plaintiff identifies which specific misrepresentations or statements that are missing material facts he or she read, heard, seen or verified.” and when or where these statements were made. “

The battery discharge class action lawsuit against Subaru is being discussed in the US District Court for the New Jersey District. The case is titled In re Subaru Battery Drain Products Liability Litigation.

Comments are closed.