— A BMW i3 range lawsuit has been dismissed, but the judge ruled the plaintiff could change and refile the class action.
The lawsuit includes 2015-2018 BMW i3, i3s and i3 REx vehicles that allegedly fail to achieve the advertised driving ranges in cold weather.
BMW i3 vehicles are powered only by a battery, but the i3 REx also has a small gasoline engine to extend the driving range. The range extender allegedly adds $3850 to the cost of the vehicle compared to the all-electric BMW i3.
However, the lawsuit alleges the i3 REx has a lower all-electric range than a purely electric i3 because of the added weight of the extra gasoline engine.
New Jersey plaintiff Brian Hurst purchased a certified pre-owned 2015 BMW i3 REx (Range Extender) in October 2018 while it was still under warranty.
The plaintiff contends BMW concealed the real-world cold weather ranges. Hurst says advertisements said the i3 REx had a range of 80 miles on battery only and 150 miles with the range extender.
He also references the window sticker which estimated its electric battery mileage range was 72 miles. But the plaintiff asserts he was only able to travel 39 miles on a fully charged battery in winter months.
The plaintiff also argues several BMW representatives said cold weather does not decrease the range, at least not significantly.
BMW allegedly knew how the cold affects the driving range but failed to warn customers. Instead, BMW allegedly advertised i3 driving ranges under perfect driving conditions and not in cold weather.
The plaintiff says a BMW dealer checked out the i3 and found no flaws in the battery, but a technician allegedly said, "the cold weather reduced the Vehicle’s range and that storing the car outside in 15–20 degree weather would result in the range dropping down to almost nothing."
BMW i3 Driving Range Lawsuit Dismissed
Judge Susan D. Wigenton began by dismissing all arguments based on the BMW i3 window sticker. The judge ruled all claims related to the window sticker are preempted by federal regulations.
The judge notes new vehicle fuel economy and driving range testing and disclosure is governed by the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 and the Environmental Protection Agency.
EPA regulations mandate the window sticker include the statement, “Actual results will vary for many reasons, including driving conditions and how you drive and maintain your vehicle.”
"Federal law, regulations, and other publicly available information make clear that these figures are estimates, that actual driving range will vary based on a multitude of factors including climate and weather, and that the range listed on a window sticker does not guarantee performance." — Judge Wigenton
Warranty claims against BMW did no better.
Although the plaintiff alleges some misleading advertisements and statements about BMW i3s, the judge says the advertisements "did not plausibly form part of his 'bargain for the product,' or decision to purchase his Vehicle."
According to the judge, the plaintiff fails to allege any specific statement that was made prior to his purchase regarding a 2015 BMW i3 REx.
The plaintiff included a website screenshot, but the judge noticed it was dated 2022, appears on the website of a third-party dealership and it does not specify that it applies to a 2015 BMW i3 REx.
The lawsuit also references two YouTube videos, but the videos were not created or posted by BMW, and they discuss a 2014 BMW i3 and an i3 concept car, not a 2015 BMW i3 REx.
The judge also found the plaintiff does not allege his i3 never reached the ranges indicated in the owner's manual. But even if he had, the plaintiff admits the owner's manual warned the range “can be abruptly reduced” by “climate and terrain conditions.”
In addition to warranty claims, the judge also dismissed fraud, misrepresentation and unjust enrichment claims.
The judge gave the plaintiff until September 15, 2023, to amend his BMW i3 range lawsuit.
The BMW i3 range lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey: Brian Hurst, v. BMW of North America, LLC, et al.
The plaintiff is represented by Kantrowitz, Goldhamer & Graifman, P.C., and Thomas P. Sobran, P.C.
