— A BMW M3 rod bearings lawsuit has survived BMW's motion to dismiss the class-action lawsuit that alleges the engines fail because metal debris enters the oil and travels through the engines.
Plaintiff David Afzal filed the BMW M3 rod bearings lawsuit in 2015 by claiming 2008-2013 BMW M3 sedans have defects that cause the rod and main bearings to fail and send metal debris from the bearings into the oil.
The plaintiff says dealers twice refused to do anything about the knocking sounds coming from the connecting rod bearings even though the car was under warranty. Afzal alleges on two occasions, BMW dealers diagnosed the knocking as “normal heat expansion” and said there were no problems with the engine.
The lawsuit claims Afzal took the car to an independent repair shop technician who said the rod bearings needed to be replaced for $2,000.
According to court documents, the engines fail from damage to numerous components, including rotating assemblies, rod bearings and the main bearings. In addition, the engines can fail once the metal debris corrupts the oil by causing insufficient engine lubrication.
The plaintiff further claims the defective rotating assembly causes the hydraulic power steering to be lost, a fact BMW knows about but has allegedly concealed from consumers.
The M3 engine failure lawsuit also says it is "unconscionable" the engines have a bad habit of failing shortly after the warranties expire, leaving owners to pay thousands for repairs or park the useless cars.
BMW filed a motion to dismiss the M3 rod bearings lawsuit by arguing charges of violating implied warranty claims should be dismissed because the plaintiff purchased his M3 from a private party, not directly from the manufacturer or an authorized dealer.
The automaker also said claims that it knew about the alleged defects based on customer complaints don't hold water because people complain about things all the time, but it doesn't necessarily mean a defect exists.
The plaintiff also alleges BMW knew a defect existed in the rod bearings and components because the automaker sent technical service bulletins to dealers concerning engine problems. However, BMW told the judge just because bulletins were sent to dealerships, it doesn't mean BMW knew a defect existed on a certain date and time.
BMW also told the court the plaintiff didn't give the automaker enough time to repair the car, something the plaintiff says is nonsense because dealers twice refused to acknowledge the connecting rod bearings were causing the problems. The lawsuit alleges the reason the dealer declined to admit the engine problems was because the car was still under warranty and BMW didn't want to write the check for repairs.
BMW did make a few strides with its motion to dismiss after U.S. District Judge Madeline Cox Arleo dismissed a claim of breached implied warranty as the judge ruled Afzal has no claim because he isn't the original owner of the car. Claims that BMW committed fraud were also dismissed as the judge ruled allegations of fraud weren't specific and the plaintiff couldn't prove BMW knew a defect existed.
Although the automaker won partial dismissal of the rod bearings lawsuit, the judge said the case can continue based on claims that BMW violated the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and claims of breach of express warranty.
The BMW M3 engine failure lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, Newark Division - Afzal v. BMW of North America.
The plaintiff is represented by Chimicles & Tikellis LLP, Goldman Scarlato & Penny, P.C., and Thorsnes Bartolotta McGuire LLP.
