— A Cadillac CUE lawsuit is still alive in court, but the judge hearing the case dismissed multiple claims that allege the CUE (Cadillac User Experience) screens fill with spider web patterns.
According to the Cadillac CUE class action lawsuit, these vehicles are equipped with the defective systems made of projected capacitance screens and plastic covers.
- 2013-2017 Cadillac ATS
- 2013-2017 Cadillac SRX
- 2013-2017 Cadillac XTS
- 2014-2017 Cadillac CTS
- 2014-2017 Cadillac ELR
- 2014-2017 Cadillac Escalade
The plaintiffs who sued allege the CUE plastic covers delaminate and separate from the screen glass, leaving spider web patterns which prevent the screens from recognizing touch inputs.
The CUE lawsuit says mechanical or thermal stress can cause the plastic covers to separate from the screens due to the placements of the screws and rubberized gaskets that hold the plastic covers to the frames of the CUE systems.
The plaintiffs claim the plastic covers are anchored to the screens by eight screws, but two screws are placed on “the bottom portion of the plastic cover, which causes it to flex and move when pressure is applied.”
The plaintiffs also allege the rubber gaskets are cut in a way that creates excessive space between the screens and the plastic covers which also “allows for more flexibility in the plastic cover, which leads to the spider-webbing defect."
In addition, the covers allegedly delaminate because of temperature changes, causing a risk to safety by distracting drivers.
According to the Cadillac CUE lawsuit, General Motors knew or should have known about the problems because four technical service bulletins (TSBs) were issued to dealerships between 2014 and 2017.
These TSBs told dealers that “[s]ome customers may report that their radio screen appears bubbled, crack, or is delaminating,” and dealers were told to “replace the ICS (Integrated Center Stack) by following the SI replacement procedure.”
In a motion to dismiss the class action, GM argues the court lacks personal jurisdiction over GM for non-California plaintiffs, but personal jurisdiction must exist for each claim asserted against the automaker.
According to GM, the plaintiffs don't allege the vehicles were manufactured, sold or driven in California, and the judge agreed to dismiss claims from plaintiffs outside of California.
GM also argues Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act claims should be dismissed because to maintain a class action under the Act, “the number of named plaintiffs must be at least 100.” However, the lawsuit names only 29 separate plaintiffs, including those outside California.
The judge agreed and granted GM's motion to dismiss the Magnuson-Moss Warranty claims.
For a breach of express warranty claim made by the plaintiffs, General Motor says the plaintiffs didn't plead a viable claim because the owners didn't allege they experienced the defect during the warranty period.
And GM says the owners didn't present their vehicles to dealers for repairs during the warranty periods, and none of the owners claim the automaker refused or failed to repair their vehicles.
The judge ruled because the plaintiffs didn't satisfy the repair or durational terms of the warranty, GM's motion to dismiss the express warranty claims of the California plaintiffs is granted.
In total, the judge dismissed all the claims against GM other than a warranty claim made by one plaintiff, and claims of unjust enrichment for all California plaintiffs to the extent they are premised on California law.
The Cadillac CUE lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California - Goldstein, et al., v. General Motors LLC.
The plaintiffs are represented by Capstone Law, and Berger Montague.
CarComplaints.com has owner-reported complaints about the GM vehicles.
