— A Ford truck roof collapse lawsuit will move forward in court minus several claims which were dismissed by the federal judge.
The Ford Super Duty roof class action lawsuit includes more than 5 million trucks allegedly equipped with roofs too weak to handle rollover crashes, causing the roofs to collapse.
The Super Duty roof lawsuit includes all 1999-2016 Ford F-250, F-350, F-450 and F-550 Super Duty trucks in the U.S.
Lawyers began filing several Ford truck roof lawsuits after a Georgia jury awarded a family $1.7 billion from a 2002 Ford 250 Super Duty rollover crash that occurred in 2014.
The first Ford truck roof collapse class action lawsuit was filed weeks after the $1.7 billion Hill v. Ford verdict, with all the lawsuits alleging Ford knew the roofs were defective before the first Super Duty was sold in 1999.
The Hill verdict has been appealed, but the class actions have been consolidated into, "In re Ford Super Duty Roof-Crush Litigation."
Those roof lawsuits include Ryan Scott v. Ford, Steven Beck v. Ford, Rhodes v. Ford and Curtis Bright v. Ford.
Ford says the consolidated truck roof lawsuit should be dismissed because none of the customers who sued ever had any problems with their Super Duty truck roofs.
Only one plaintiff comes close, but the 2011 crash involved his son's 2000 Ford F-250 Super Duty truck. Ford argues there were no injuries from the crash, and in fact the same plaintiff who sued later purchased an earlier model year Ford Super Duty truck which he still drives.
Ford argues all the trucks met or exceeded all federal safety standards, yet the lawsuits allege more than 5 million trucks are too dangerous to provide safe transportation.
The plaintiffs claim "Ford lobbied to weaken government standards for roof strength testing and subsequently weakened the roof structure on Super Duty model trucks so it could save money."
Ford Truck Roof Lawsuit — Partly Dismissed
Ford filed a motion to dismiss the truck roof lawsuit, but Judge Brandy R. McMillion refused to dismiss the class action even though several claims were tossed.
"At this stage of the litigation, the Court accepts the facts as alleged to be true. Based on that premise, Plaintiffs have alleged sufficient facts to assert several of their claims. The Court notes that discovery may prove otherwise; but currently, Plaintiffs present enough to survive Ford’s Motion." — Judge McMillion
Ford argues none of the plaintiffs allege an injury because none of the plaintiffs claim their truck roofs collapsed in rollover crashes. But the plaintiffs assert they were injured because they overpaid for their 1999-2016 Ford Super Duty trucks.
Ford also contends the plaintiffs lack standing to bring claims under the laws of states where none of the plaintiffs purchased their trucks.
The judge partially agreed and said the plaintiffs do not have standing to bring claims in 30 unrepresented states.
Because the statutes of limitations expired long ago, Ford argues most of the fraud-based claims are time-barred because the alleged facts the plaintiffs “rely on to show the alleged fraud were publicly available when they bought their vehicles.”
According to court documents, Ford says implied warranty claims are outside the applicable statutes of limitations and are therefore time-barred. The plaintiffs argue the statutes of limitations should be suspended or paused, what is called "equitably toll the statutes of limitations."
The judge agrees "that equitable tolling is appropriate here."
However, Ford also said implied warranty claims should be dismissed because the plaintiffs failed to allege their Ford Super Duty trucks, "are not fit for their ordinary and intended purpose."
The judge agreed, and dismissed all the implied warranty claims.
In addition to dismissing all the implied warranty claims, Judge McMillion dismissed in full the nationwide Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act claim, and partially dismissed a nationwide fraudulent concealment claim, "with respect to the 30 unrepresented states and Arkansas only."
The judge also partially dismissed a nationwide unjust enrichment claim, "with respect to the 30 unrepresented states only."
In addition, the judge dismissed three consumer protection claims.
However, the judge allowed certain claims to proceed against Ford, including fraudulent concealment and unjust enrichment claims in 19 states.
The roof collapse lawsuit will continue for Ford Super Duty truck customers in these states:
Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, Texas, Utah and Washington
The Ford Super Duty roof collapse class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan: In re Ford Super Duty Roof-Crush Litigation.
The plaintiffs are represented by Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, the Miller Law Firm PC, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Keller Rohrback L.L.P., Fegan Scott LLC, and Shindler, Anderson, Goplerud & Weese PC.
