— A General Motors Vortec engine lawsuit is still working its way through the system four years after the original class action was filed.
According to the GM engine lawsuit, 2011-2014 Chevrolet and GMC vehicles consume way too much oil, just one GM oil consumption lawsuit of many that have been filed in the U.S.
The GM 5.3-liter engine lawsuit includes:
"All current and former owners or lessees of a Class Vehicle (as defined herein) that was purchased or leased in the State of Ohio."
The GM engine lawsuit includes these vehicles manufactured on or after February 10, 2011, and equipped with Generation IV 5.3 liter V8 Vortec 5300 LC9 engines:
- 2011-2014 Chevrolet Avalanche
- 2011-2014 Chevrolet Silverado
- 2011-2014 Chevrolet Suburban
- 2011-2014 Chevrolet Tahoe
- 2011-2014 GMC Sierra
- 2011-2014 GMC Yukon
- 2011-2014 GMC Yukon XL
Plaintiff Lisa Mae Jennings purchased a new 2013 Chevrolet Silverado in 2013, but after driving the truck for three years and over 40,000 miles, the check engine light came on and the power dropped. The lawsuit says a dealer replaced a broken camshaft for free under warranty.
The check engine light came on again a few months later and the dealer replaced the oil pressure switch. The warranty had expired so the plaintiff paid for the repair.
The GM engine lawsuit alleges the check engine light came on again when the truck was seven years old with 92,000 miles on it. This time a GM dealer replaced the AFM lifter.
GM's response?
"The truck has not needed any other repairs, and plaintiff has never had an oil consumption test performed on her 2013 Silverado. There is no evidence that any of the repairs to her truck had anything to do with excess oil consumption or a piston ring defect." — General Motors
GM notes the truck now has over 100,000 miles on it and is still driven, and the plaintiff allegedly has no evidence her truck has a defect or needed repairs as a result of piston ring wear or excessive oil consumption.
Amidst other motions filed by GM, the automaker says the plaintiff agreed to arbitrate any dispute over her GM truck.
GM Engine Lawsuit — Motion to Compel Arbitration Denied
General Motors argues for an order compelling arbitration because the GM engine lawsuit plaintiff signed a valid and binding arbitration agreement.
Judge Charles E. Fleming notes how numerous actions were filed before GM filed its motion to compel arbitration.
Examples: GM filed its opposition to class certification, its motion to exclude the opinions and testimony of the plaintiff's experts and several notices in response to the plaintiffs.
The judge denied the motion for class action certification in September 2023, but GM didn't file its motion to compel arbitration until November 2023.
According to the judge, GM simply waited too long and after too many other court actions and motions to seek arbitration.
The judge referenced a previous similar case in denying GM's motion to compel.
"Like Schwebke, these actions and their associated timeline are inconsistent with reliance on any potential arbitration right Defendant may have. Defendant received the arbitration agreement in March 2022 and waited nearly two years (20 months) to seek to compel arbitration. No explanation has been given for the protracted delay in doing so. The Court finds that Defendant waived any right it may have had to compel arbitration. Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration is DENIED." — Judge Charles E. Fleming
The GM Vortec engine lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division: Lisa Mae Jennings v. General Motors LLC.
The plaintiff is represented by DiCello Levitt Gutzler LLC, and Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles, P.C.
