Toyota to settle truck rust lawsuit for up to $3.4 billion

[jpd80]

 

November 12, 2016 @ 6:50 pm

David Bailey

Reuters...LINK

 

Toyota Motor Corp. agreed to a settlement of up to $3.4 billion for a federal class action

brought by U.S. owners of pickup trucks and SUVs whose frames could rust through,

plaintiffs lawyers have said in court papers.

 

The proposed settlement covers about 1.5 million Tacoma compact pickups,

Tundra full-size pickups and Sequoia SUVs alleged to have received inadequate

rust protection that could lead to corrosion serious enough to jeopardize their

structural integrity, according to court papers.

 

Attorneys for the plaintiffs in court papers supporting the settlement estimated the

value of frame replacements at about $3.375 billion based on a cost of about

$15,000 per vehicle and the inspections at about $90 million at $60 per vehicle.

 

 

 

Ouch, that's gotta hurt.......

[blwnsmoke]

http://www.upi.com/Business_News/2016/11/12/Toyota-to-pay-34-billion-to-settle-premature-rusting-lawsuits/1311478980400/?hl=1&noRedirect=1

 

 

 

Under the terms of the deal, Toyota must notify owners of the affected vehicles and perform annual inspections for up to 12 years from the first year the individual owned the truck. If premature corrosion is found, Toyota will replace the frames at no cost to the vehicle's owner.

[jpd80]

So the $90 Million figure is for 1.5 million inspections @ $60 each - only the first 12 month inspection.

 

Even if none of the frames require replacement (doubtful), the 12 years of inspections will cost almost $1.1 Billion.

[sullynd]

I'll never understand these (same with the Windstar issue). If a vehicle is out of warranty, hasn't a manufacturer completed their obligation to the consumer? I mean I'd be pissed if it happened to me, but not sure I'd expect a frame replacement.

[blwnsmoke]

I'll never understand these (same with the Windstar issue). If a vehicle is out of warranty, hasn't a manufacturer completed their obligation to the consumer? I mean I'd be pissed if it happened to me, but not sure I'd expect a frame replacement.

 

 

Isn't that the same thing as any other recall, safety issue or premature part failure? By your logic, any time a vehicle is out of warranty, there should never be a recall or warranty extension on a vehicle even if the part is made incorrectly and it takes time for its failure to show.

Edited November 13, 2016 by blwnsmoke

[atomcat68]

At around 8-12 years, wouldn't it be easier and chaeper for Toyota to buy back the truck and crush it than to replace the frame?

[akirby]

I thought Toyota already replaced frames on Tacomas. Maybe this extends the coverage.

[fordtech1]

So when is the statue of limitations up? Damn 8-12 years old. It's old. It's a machine. Your refrigerator rust or breaks after 5 years, Maytag isn't required to fix it. I understand that it's premature. However past 10 years. Come on. A lot can happen in ten years. Rust belt vehicles look like crap underneath in two. Why just frames? Why not brake lines? They rust in half leaking important brake fluid. Why are they not required to be repaired by the manufacturer?

More importantly your house at best has a structural ten year warranty. If it falls into two pieces in the 11th year, you own both pieces. It's interesting to me how the automotive industry is liable for certain parts forever and your home isn't. yet your car depreciates and house appreciates.

Edited November 13, 2016 by fordtech1

[RichardJensen]

I believe the extended obligations are under an interpretation of merchantability and/or fitness of purpose.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied_warranty

 

Note especially:

 

 

Under US law, goods are 'merchantable' if they meet the following conditions:

1. The goods must conform to the standards of the trade as applicable to the contract for sale.
2. They must be fit for the purposes such goods are ordinarily used, even if the buyer ordered them for use otherwise.
3. They must be uniform as to quality and quantity, within tolerances of the contract for sale.
4. They must be packed and labeled per the contract for sale.
5. They must meet the specifications on the package labels, even if not so specified by the contract for sale.

 

 

"They must be fit for the purposes such goods are ordinarily used"

 

In other words, if one may reasonably expect the frame of a truck to last at least 12 years, than there is an implied warranty against significant defects over that time period.

[akirby]