— A Mercedes-Benz class action lawsuit over shattered sunroofs will continue in court as Mercedes failed to convince the judge to dismiss the complaint.
According to the lawsuit, the panoramic sunroofs are defective when they suddenly explode without external impacts.
The loud shotgun-like sound is a distraction to drivers who, along with their passengers, find themselves covered with shards of glass.
The Mercedes-Benz sunroof class action lawsuit includes these vehicles.
- 2011-present Mercedes-Benz C-Class
- 2014-present Mercedes-Benz CLA-Class
- 2011-present Mercedes-Benz E-Class
- 2011-present Mercedes-Benz GL-Class
- 2011-present Mercedes-Benz GLS-Class
- 2011-present Mercedes-Benz GLK-Class
- 2011-present Mercedes-Benz GLC-Class
- 2012-present Mercedes-Benz M-Class
- 2012-present Mercedes-Benz GLE-Class
- 2015-2017 Mercedes Maybach S-600
- 2011-2012 Mercedes-Benz R-Class
- 2011-present Mercedes-Benz S-Class
- 2011-2019 Mercedes-Benz SL-Class
- 2013-2020 Mercedes-Benz SLK-Class
- 2013-2020 Mercedes-Benz SLC-Class
The Mercedes sunroofs allegedly shatter because the automaker used tempered glass instead of laminated. The plaintiffs contend the tempering process causes the outer layer to become compromised.
The lawsuit also alleges thin glass makes the tempering process more difficult because, “the compressive layers are thinner, increasing the probability for the glass to be compromised and result in catastrophic failure.”
A small scratch or flaw during the manufacturing process can allegedly damage the compressed layer and cause the sunroof to shatter.
In addition, the plaintiffs argue the panoramic sunroofs are prone to shatter because of ceramic paint applied before the tempering process.
The ceramic enamel allegedly “significantly weaken[s] the structural strength and integrity of the Class Vehicles’ tempered panoramic sunroof glazing.”
Mercedes dealerships allegedly told the plaintiffs the shattered sunroofs wouldn't be replaced for free even though the sunroofs allegedly shattered under normal driving conditions.
Motion to Dismiss the Mercedes-Benz Sunroof Lawsuit
As with all class action lawsuits, Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. said in ruling on a motion to dismiss, "the court must accept the facts pleaded in the complaint as true and construe them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff."
According to the judge, at the pleading stage, the plaintiff “receives the benefit of imagination.”
In its motion to dismiss, Mercedes argues the plaintiffs lack standing to sue, that the class action lawsuit is nothing more than a “shotgun pleading,” and the plaintiffs allegedly failed to properly state any of their claims.
However, the judge disagreed with most of the automaker's arguments.
Mercedes contends the plaintiffs do not have standing to assert claims about vehicle models or model years not owned by the plaintiffs.
But the plaintiffs assert the issue should be deferred until the class action certification stage, and the judge says he agrees with the plaintiffs.
As for proving the panoramic sunroofs are defective, the judge won't require evidence of that before proceeding to the discovery phase of the case.
By the end of his 61 page opinion, Judge Thrash dismissed only a few counts regarding a few plaintiffs.
The Mercedes-Benz shattered sunroof class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia: Natalie Bolling v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, et al.
The plaintiff is represented by Irby Law LLC.
