— A Dodge Durango tail light class action lawsuit will continue in court after Chrysler failed to convince the judge to dismiss the case.
The two owners who sued contend the tail lights are defective in 2014-2023 Durangos because water leaks through the gaskets and seals on the tailgates.
According to the class action, the water ruins the tail lights, backup lights and backup camera systems.
Fiat Chrysler has allegedly known about the tail light and tailgate problems since 2020 but continues to conceal the dangers from consumers. In addition, FCA hasn't recalled the Dodge Durangos, and the lawsuit alleges FCA won't pay for repairs once the warranties expire.
Dodge Durango Tail Light Class Action Lawsuit — The Plaintiffs
California plaintiff Brian Jenkins purchased a used 2019 Dodge Durango in March 2020. In January 2023, Jenkins noticed water in the tail light of his Durango, but he was told it would cost $1,300 to repair and he would need to pay for it.
California plaintiff Matthew Brookshier purchased a used 2021 Dodge Durango in 2024, and before that he previously purchased a 2017 Dodge Durango which also had tail light problems.
He alleges that “a primary factor in [his] decision” to purchase the 2021 Durango was his belief the vehicle had been redesigned to fix the tail light issues. But in March 2024, Brookshier noticed water in his Durango’s tail light and was told the necessary repairs were not covered.
Motion to Dismiss the Dodge Durango Tail Light Lawsuit
Judge Jeffrey S. White says he must accept the allegations in the class action as "true and construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.”
FCA argues Brookshier’s breach of express warranty claim fails because he doesn't claim he sought the repair before the warranty’s “applicable time or mileage periods … elapsed.”
But the plaintiff asserts a “factory 3-year, 36,000 mile limited warranty … came standard with [his] vehicle” but he does not provide any additional information about the warranty.
According to the judge, he isn't dismissing the warranty claim based on the fact he must favor the plaintiff above Chrysler.
"Reading the allegations in the light most favorable to Brookshier, it is reasonable to infer from the statement that 'despite' the warranty and from the model date of his Durango, he sought repairs before the warranty expired." — Judge White
The plaintiffs also allege Chrysler should have warned them about the alleged tail light problems through the window stickers and advertising, and the judge said because he must accept the allegations as true, the court "concludes those allegations are sufficient."
In addition, the judge ruled at this stage of the Durango class action lawsuit, the plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged FCA owed owners a duty to warn them about an "unreasonable safety risk" due to the water and sealing problems.
The judge also analyzed a negligent misrepresentation claim but found the plaintiffs needed to provide more information about their allegation.
CarComplaints.com will update our website when more information is released about the Dodge Durango lawsuit.
The Dodge Durango tail light class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California: Jenkins, et al., v. FCA US LLC.
The plaintiffs are represented by Nye Stirling Hale & Miller, LLP, and Cafferty Clobes Meriwether & Sprengel LLP.
