11/20/24 | Court Denies General Motor’s Motion for Additional Review
Hagens Berman is pleased to announce the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied General Motor’s petition seeking additional review of the August 2024 decision, which reversed the Eastern District of Michigan trial court’s dismissal of Andrei Fenner, et al v. General Motors, LLC.
The Sixth Circuit’s denial of the petition prevents any further review at the Court of Appeals level. Without further action from the U.S. Supreme Court and once the appellate decision is final, attorneys expect the case to be remanded to the district court for further proceedings.
The petition denial is additional good news for consumers, as the appellate decision in this case is now binding precedent within the Sixth Circuit in other emissions cases that were dismissed on the same grounds. Using this precedent, Hagens Berman will continue advocating for consumers who were victims of phony claims by manufacturers as to the emissions cleanliness of their cars and trucks.
Own a 2011-2016 Chevy Silverado or GMC Sierra Duramax Diesel 2500 HD or 3500 HD? The diesel engine you paid a $5,000 premium for is allegedly equipped with emissions-increasing devices and emits unexpectedly high levels of unhealthy NOx pollution.
AFFECTED VEHICLES
- 2011-2016 Chevy Silverado Duramax Diesel 2500 HD
- 2011-2016 Chevy Silverado Duramax Diesel 3500 HD
- 2011-2016 GMC Sierra Duramax Diesel 2500 HD
- 2011-2016 GMC Sierra Duramax Diesel 3500 HD
WHAT'S THE ISSUE?
Hagens Berman filed a class-action lawsuit claiming General Motors intentionally sold 2011-2016 Chevy Silverado and GMC Sierra Duramax Diesel 2500 HD and 3500 HD vehicles with emissions-cheating devices that mask the vehicle's release of unnecessarily and unexpectedly high levels of nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions. According to the lawsuit, the alleged use of these “defeat devices” means consumers paid a significant premium for a diesel truck that allegedly emits higher-than-expected levels of NOx emissions.
CLAIMS AGAINST GENERAL MOTORS
The complaint states GM knew consumers would pay more for a powerful and efficient diesel option and allegedly used these devices to obtain the power and performance it wanted, while hiding unnecessarily and unexpectedly high levels of pollution. Plaintiffs allege GM deceived consumers into paying high premiums for what it advertised were vehicles that provided both state-of-the-art “clean” emissions and the towing, power and efficiency customers wanted.
EMISSIONS CHEATING ALLEGATIONS EXPLAINED
The lawsuit accuses GM of intentionally installing multiple emissions-increasing devices in affected Chevy Silverado and GMC Sierra trucks that resulted in higher emissions than consumers expected from trucks supposedly containing high-tech “clean diesel” engines. The complaint alleges GM was motivated by its desire to increase sales and profits, and without these emissions-increasing devices, the Silverado and Sierra trucks could not achieve the fuel economy, range, towing power or performance GM promised.
According to the firm’s expert studies, the alleged “defeat devices” engage emission controls at temperatures within which emissions tests must be done, but outside that temperature range, emission controls are turned down or “de-rated.”
Another alleged defeat device de-rates emission controls after 5 to 10 minutes of steady (i.e., highway) driving, which experts say never happens during an emissions test. The lawsuit claims that these devices combine to allow the trucks to pass emissions tests while masking the vehicle's true output of NOx during actual on-road driving.
Affected Silverado and Sierra Duramax diesels allegedly emit NOx pollutants at a much higher rate than consumers expected, with real-world emissions often exceeding Federal and California NOx emissions limits by two- to five-fold. Yet, despite their lack of effectiveness, these “clean diesel” systems cost purchasers an estimated $5,000 more than their gasoline equivalent.
YOUR CONSUMER RIGHTS
Hagens Berman believes that consumers have the right to compensation for the premium price they paid for what they thought was a powerful, efficient and environmentally “clean” option. According to the firm's investigation, GM charged consumers an additional premium for vehicles that are allegedly emitting unexpectedly and unnecessarily high emissions. Thousands of consumers did not receive what they paid for and purchased their Silverado or Sierra under allegedly false information.
TOP AUTO LITIGATION FIRM
Hagens Berman is one of the most successful auto litigation firms in the U.S. and has led nationwide cases against Volkswagen and other automakers for their widespread use of diesel emissions-cheating software. Our firm’s independent research outpaces even government agencies, and we are the only firm dedicating its own resources to uncovering new instances of fraud. Hagens Berman has also taken on other automakers on behalf of consumers throughout the United States for safety defects and negligence.
CASE TIMELINE
Hagens Berman is pleased to announce the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has reversed the Eastern District of Michigan trial court’s dismissal of the Duramax diesel emissions case, overturning the ruling that such claims were preempted by the Clean Air Act. Pending further possible action by the defendants, once the appellate decision is final, attorneys expect the case to be remanded to the District Court for further proceedings.
Other judges in the Eastern District of Michigan have dismissed emissions cases on the same grounds, so this is good news for consumers who were victims of phony claims by manufacturers as to the emissions cleanliness of their cars and trucks.
Steve Berman argued for the plaintiffs, assisted by Garth Wojtanowicz and Craig Spiegel.
Hagens Berman filed an amended complaint against General Motors highlighting new details about the alleged cheat and involvement of Bosch.
The district court dismissed plaintiffs’ claims in their entirety, “with prejudice,” finding that plaintiffs’ state-law consumer protection claims were pre-empted by federal law. The court also dismissed plaintiffs’ claims under the RICO statute. Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.
