— A Nissan sunroof class action lawsuit which has been in court since 2017 will continue after Nissan lost an appeal to the Ninth Circuit.
The Nissan exploding sunroof lawsuit includes these vehicles.
- 2009-2014 and 2016-2020 Nissan Maxima
- 2014-2020 Nissan Rogue
- 2013-2020 Nissan Pathfinder
- 2009-2020 Nissan Murano
- 2013 Infiniti JX35
- 2014-2020 Infiniti QX60
The original class action lawsuit included all affected Nissan owners nationwide, which makes sense because if the sunroofs are defective then they are likely defective everywhere.
But as with many automotive class actions, the class action has not been certified nationwide but only for certain customers in these four states: California, Colorado, New York and Florida.
The Nissan sunroof glass allegedly shatters like a shotgun while driving or while the vehicle is parked. Nissan occupants complain of the extreme distraction caused by an exploding sunroof while driving. In addition, owners report vehicle occupants are placed in danger from shards of glass falling from the roofs.
According to the Nissan class action lawsuit, Nissan's warranties typically don't cover glass damage, and the plaintiffs assert it may cost $1,000 to repair or replace the shattered sunroof.
However, Nissan says research shows less than one-half of 1% of sunroofs in all its models shatter.
Nissan Sunroof Class Action Lawsuit Appeal
Nissan appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit once the district court granted class action certification as to state law claims in California, Colorado, New York and Florida.
Nissan argues there is no admissible evidence of an alleged common design defect that increases the likelihood the sunroof will spontaneously shatter.
Most consumers likely believe evidence of a defect would need to exist for a lawsuit to move forward in court, especially before a judge would allow thousands of car owners to sue.
But the appeals court said, "proof of a defect is not required to establish class certification."
The appeals court found the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding several common questions of law and fact.
The district court cited “the nature of the alleged defect,” “Nissan’s knowledge (or lack thereof) about the alleged defect,” “whether a reasonable consumer would find the omission of the defect material,” “whether the vehicles violated the implied warranty of merchantability,” and the “extent to which Nissan’s nondisclosure constituted concealment.”
Nissan also argues the district court erred by certifying a class in which the “vast majority” of class members “have never had—nor ever will have—a broken [panoramic sunroof].”
However, the Ninth Circuit says even if that is true, the plaintiffs claim all Nissan owners paid more for the panoramic sunroofs when they purchased the vehicles because Nissan didn't warn them about alleged sunroof defects that affect all the vehicles.
Nissan also said the named plaintiffs should not be able to represent the owners of Nissan models that the named plaintiffs do not own. However, the Ninth Circuit disagreed.
The Nissan sunroof class action certification for the four states will remain.
The Nissan exploding sunroof lawsuit was filed by these customers.
- Sherida Johnson — California
- Linda Spry — Colorado
- Lisa Sullivan — Florida
- April Ahrens — Illinois
- Chad Loury — California
- Subrina Seenarain — New York
The Nissan exploding sunroof lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California: Sherida Johnson, et al., v. Nissan North America, Inc.
The plaintiff is represented by Simmons Hanly Conroy LLC, and Greg Coleman Law PC.
