— A class action lawsuit being debated in a Michigan courtroom will continue into Chrysler Pacifica Hybrid problems that have caused two recalls and a government investigation.
At least 11 Chrysler class action lawsuits were filed regarding Pacific Hybrid battery fires.
Those class actions were consolidated into one 1,450-paragraph Pacific Hybrid battery multidistrict litigation case titled, IN RE: Chrysler Pacifica Fire Recall Products Liability Litigation.
Owners contend the Chrysler Pacifica Hybrid problems make driving the minivans too dangerous. Even charging the vehicle is a problem, as is parking the minivan too close to anything that can catch fire.
According to the class action, the battery can catch fire or explode at any time, even when the minivan is parked and shut off. The owners who sued assert even with the Pacifica Hybrid recalls, they still cannot use their minivans as designed.
Chrysler owners complain about trying to park outside and away from structures and other vehicles even after two battery fire recalls.
The class action alleges the recalls (here and here) are not good enough because all the Pacifica Hybrid batteries won't be replaced.
The recall remedy "consists merely of software patches meant to 'monitor' the battery system for conditions that may lead to thermal runaway, and no repair or replacement of the battery pack is offered unless Chrysler deems it 'necessary' after an inspection."
"It appears that the defendant did not determine that replacement was a necessary measure for any of the plaintiffs’ vehicles (or, apparently, for most of the thousands of class vehicles currently in service)." — Chrysler Pacifica Hybrid lawsuit
The Chrysler Pacifica Hybrid problems also caused the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to open a "recall query" after the first battery fire recall. NHTSA said minivans continued to catch fire after the first recall and after the minivans were allegedly repaired.
Another Chrysler Pacifica Hybrid battery fire recall was issued following the federal recall query, with Chrysler describing what causes the Pacifica Hybrid problems.
“A folded or torn anode tab may result in the generation of lithium by-product over time. This defect, along with a second unidentified factor, may lead to an internal short within the pack and may result in a vehicle fire.”
Motion to Dismiss the Chrysler Pacifica Hybrid Lawsuit
Fiat Chrysler filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit but the judge allowed the majority of the claims to continue, including common law fraud claims which FCA argues are time barred. The judge ruled dismissal is not appropriate at this early pleading stage.
Chrysler told the judge the battery defect has not “manifested” in every Pacifica Hybrid, but the judge quickly disagreed. Due to the ongoing recall restrictions, the judge ruled the battery defect has manifested in every 2017-2018 Chrysler Pacifica Hybrid.
Recall instructions warn minivan owners to not charge their vehicles or park near things that can burn, and the judge says this means the battery defect has manifested in every minivan.
FCA also argues the plaintiffs cannot prove they relied on particular representations by Chrysler about the 2017-2018 Pacifica Hybrids.
However, the judge held the "plaintiffs in this case uniformly have alleged that they 'relied' on the defendant’s representations about the superior fuel economy of the class vehicles based on their integration of the plug-in hybrid system, which is a feature that undisputedly commanded a substantial price premium over a conventional gas-only powertrain."
In Chrysler's favor, the judge did dismiss Nevada and Tennessee claims because the only named plaintiffs from those states walked away from their claims.
The plaintiffs also concede the dismissal of the common law fraud counts under Massachusetts and Texas laws.
The Chrysler Pacifica Hybrid problems are under debate in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (Southern Division): IN RE: Chrysler Pacifica Fire Recall Products Liability Litigation.
The plaintiffs are represented by Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, The Miller Law Firm, P.C., Barrack, Rodos & Bacine, Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, LLP, and Casey Gerry Schenk Francavilla Blatt & Penfield LLP.
