Rod bearing class action update

[jinx1181]

Not sure if anyone else has seen this but it was posted a couple weeks ago regarding the current state of the class action regarding rod bearings:

https://www.law360.com/articles/9492...ect-judge-says

[2013M3]

I would like to be included on this follow up.

[2013M3]

full article not available. so let us know what ups with it.

[EnVe46]

BMW Should've Known Of Alleged Engine Defect, Judge Says
By John Kennedy

Law360, New York (July 28, 2017, 4:24 PM EDT) -- BMW must face a proposed class action over an alleged defect that can cause catastrophic engine failure, a New Jersey federal judge said Thursday, finding that the drivers had done enough to show the German automaker should have known about the problem years ago.
U.S. District Judge Madeline Cox Arleo said the two named plaintiffs had sufficiently backed up their claims of fraud and violations of California consumer protection laws by pointing to various online posts discussing the alleged defect and providing evidence that the engine design deviated far enough below industry standard that BMW of North America LLC and its German parent should’ve been tipped off.

“While any of these sources may be insufficient on its own, the court finds that the totality of these allegations — construed in plaintiffs’ favor — is sufficient to impute knowledge to BMW NA of the rotating assembly defect at the time that plaintiffs purchased their vehicles,” Judge Arleo said. “The purpose of the heightened pleading requirements is to ‘give defendants notice of the particular misconduct which is alleged to constitute the fraud charged so that they can defend against the charge.’ Plaintiffs have done so here.”

Named plaintiffs David Afzal and Andy Dechartivong have said the defect is in rod bearings, main bearings, clearance distance between engine rods, and insufficient engine lubrication in BMW’s S65 engine. In a properly constructed engine, oil thoroughly coats moving parts and prevents metal-to-metal contact, but the defect means that not enough oil is circulated and the oil that is can be contaminated with metal debris, compromising the engine’s integrity, the drivers said.

Afzal bought a used 2011 BMW M3 with about 13,000 miles on its odometer, while Dechartivong bought a used 2011 BMW E92 M3 that had been driven about 29,000 miles. They say BMW fraudulently concealed and didn’t disclose the alleged engine defect. Afzal and Dechartivong seek to represent a class comprised of all California residents who owned or leased 2008-2013 BMW M3s with S65 engines.

At about 28,000 miles, Afzal started hearing knocking and rattling noises and was told multiple times by a BMW dealer that the sounds were from “normal exhaust expansion.” But an independent mechanic found his car’s engine rods were “excessively worn” and that the engine was on the brink of catastrophic failure. The rods and other parts were replaced for about $2,000 and he hasn’t heard the noises since.

Dechartivong’s car actually failed while driving and an independent BMW dealer found severe rod-related wear and damage. An authorized BMW dealership confirmed that the engine couldn’t be repaired and said it would cost $32,000 to replace it. Dechartivong repeatedly asked BMW for a new engine pursuant to his warranty, but was denied. His car remains unrepaired and hasn’t been used since September.

The judge had previously found that the drivers had shown BMW knew about the alleged defect by July 2013, but not by May 2013, when Afzal bought his car. The second amended complaint now includes several sources dating from before July 2013, she said.

Matthew D. Schelkopf of McCune Wright Arevalo LLP, a lawyer for the drivers, told Law360 Friday that they are pleased with the ruling. BMW could not be reached for comment Friday.

The drivers are represented by Matthew D. Schelkopf of McCune Wright Arevalo LLP, Paul Scarlato of Goldman Scarlato & Penny PC and Benjamin I. Siminou of Thorsnes Bartolotta McGuire LLP.

BMW is represented by Rosemary J. Bruno, Christopher J. Dalton, Daniel Z. Rivlin and Lauren Adornetto Woods of Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC.

The case is Afzal v. BMW of North America LLC et al., case number 2:15-cv-08009, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.

--Editing by Alanna Weissman.

Update: This story has been updated to include a response from the drivers.

[2013M3]

thanks for the article. does this apply only to California cars?

[CurbBender'90]

This should apply to every M3 that is currently on the road or is off the road because of the engine failure...BMW own your shit n come out of pocket for what it's worth.

[KwlAznKid]

So if the lawsuit goes through does it mean we get reimbursed for those who have gotten our rod bearings replaced?

[BOOF-M3]

Originally Posted by KwlAznKid

So if the lawsuit goes through does it mean we get reimbursed for those who have gotten our rod bearings replaced?

How about those who have thrown an engine? That would be a sweet reimbursement. And well deserved it would appear. Possibly with interest.

[motion732]

What's next? Trial?

[noremaC]

Originally Posted by motion732

What's next? Trial?

Subscribed

[Munichm3]

I feel like this won't go through. The cost is significant, although I wouldn't mind new rod bearings in thinking if it does go through, they'll just reimburse people for engine failure, but it's going to be hard to prove if you're supercharged or were...

[pbonsalb]

It will settle or go to trial. Trial is risky for bmw because it will be a battle of the experts and that could go either way since BMW bearing and oil specs are contrary to industry standards. If it is a jury trial, it's even riskier for bmw.

Great news for E9xM3 owners. But on the other hand we have 60,000 cats probably all out of warranty and probably a failure rate under 1%. But we will learn more as discovery proceeds.

[3Pedals_6Speeds]

Subscribed.

[vincE92M3]

Subscribed.

Hope it impacts those outside of California as well.

[islandguy19]

Subbed

[dfeng]

Interested in where this would go.

[SDPLV]

"The judge had previously found that the drivers had shown BMW knew about the alleged defect by July 2013, but not by May 2013, when Afzal bought his car."

Uh...please. BMW been done knowin this for nearly a decade now.

BMW hired some dumb counsel. Why would you EVER let this see the light of day? They should have buried this with a non-disclosure settlement for the engine cost of those 2 owners BEFORE it even hit court or a judge's desk. They're going to get owned if this keeps going the way it is. There's one other owner who sued in small claims and BMW didn't even show up for that one cause they were going to lose.

[BOOF-M3]

Originally Posted by jinx1181

Not sure if anyone else has seen this but it was posted a couple weeks ago regarding the current state of the class action regarding rod bearings:

https://www.law360.com/articles/9492...ect-judge-says

When you guys are saying "subscribed" are you referring to this thread or the link where it asks you to "register"? As I am not looking to register for a "free 7 day membership" to something that I will never be able to unregister from or at least not until they have 2 or 3 months of my money.

[Browntrash]

subbed

[Jhanksm3]

Subscribed

[Gooner5643]

Subbed

[FogCityM3]

Yes, BMW and its counsel have been acting cocky and overconfident for years and are now paying the price.

This is great pro-consumer news!

Originally Posted by SDPLV

"The judge had previously found that the drivers had shown BMW knew about the alleged defect by July 2013, but not by May 2013, when Afzal bought his car."

Uh...please. BMW been done knowin this for nearly a decade now.

BMW hired some dumb counsel. Why would you EVER let this see the light of day? They should have buried this with a non-disclosure settlement for the engine cost of those 2 owners BEFORE it even hit court or a judge's desk. They're going to get owned if this keeps going the way it is. There's one other owner who sued in small claims and BMW didn't even show up for that one cause they were going to lose.