— A Ram air suspension class action lawsuit has been dismissed because the truck owner waited too long to file the lawsuit.
In January 2017, New Jersey plaintiff Daniel Paolucci purchased a 2017 RAM 1500 Rebel equipped with an air suspension system.
Beginning in October 2021, Paolucci says the air suspension system had problems which began as an “occasional, gradual, loss” of his truck’s suspension.
He contends the air suspension system failed again in December 2021, so the plaintiff took his Ram truck to the dealership but was allegedly told a definitive diagnosis would take a minimum of two weeks.
According to the Ram class action lawsuit, the air suspension didn't work at all by January 2022 though the plaintiff tried to reset it multiple times.
The plaintiff asserts the dealership told him it could cost him $3,725 to repair the air ride suspension.
"The technicians explained that the Defect was likely caused by a known Air Ride system issue wherein moisture permeates the system, freezes, and causes damage to the internal components. Plaintiff was told that his vehicle is unsafe to drive in cold weather, and that a complete replacement of the Air Ride system constituted “regular maintenance” of the vehicle." — Ram air suspension class action lawsuit
The plaintiff says he contacted FCA customer service to "request a goodwill replacement of his vehicle," but his request was denied in January 2022.
The Ram class action alleges the plaintiff paid $2,898 to remove the "Air Ride system from his vehicle entirely and replace it with an alternative suspension system."
Ram Air Suspension Class Action Lawsuit Dismissed
Chrysler filed a motion to dismiss the case by arguing a breach of implied warranty claim must be dismissed because the plaintiff drove his truck for nearly five years and tens of thousands of miles before any air suspension problems occurred.
The judge notes how the plaintiff says he purchased his Ram truck in January 2017 and first had suspension problems in October 2021, more than four years later.
However, the express warranty covered certain repairs “for 36 months from the date it begins or for 36,000 miles on the odometer, whichever occurs first.”
The warranty expired 22 months before the Ram truck allegedly suffered any air suspension problems.
The plaintiff argues the statute of limitations was suspended because FCA knew of the alleged air suspension problems and the plaintiff didn't know of the problem until it occurred.
In addition, the plaintiff argues his truck lacked merchantability “as a matter of law” because a latent defect caused the suspension system to fail, making his Ram truck unfit for the ordinary purpose of driving.
Judge Zahid Nisar Quraishi ruled the timeline of events precludes the plaintiff’s breach of implied warranty claim because the alleged air suspension defect didn't arise until long after the express warranty on his Ram truck had already expired.
"Such facts do not provide a plausible claim that Plaintiff’s vehicle was 'unfit for its ordinary purpose,' which cannot be brought in any event after expiration of the applicable warranty." — Judge Quraishi
And while the plaintiff contends the limited warranty is "unconscionable," the judge disagreed by saying the class action lawsuit has no allegations that FCA "manipulated the warranty terms to render them unconscionable, or that Defendant made any specific misrepresentations about the Air Ride system despite having 'superior knowledge' of the Defect."
Chrysler also succeeded in convincing the judge to dismiss a Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act claim because there are not at least 100 named plaintiffs.
Although the judge dismissed the entire Ram air suspension class action lawsuit, it was dismissed without prejudice which allows the plaintiff to amend (modify and refile) the lawsuit.
The Ram air suspension class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey: Daniel Paolucci v. FCA US LLC.
The plaintiff is represented by McCune Law Group, McCune Wright Arevalo Vercoski Kusel Weck Brandt, APC.
