BMW Engine Defect Class Action Preserved in Colo.

UPDATE:

• This case was dismissed April 15, 2021.

A Colorado federal judge ruled that plaintiffs can proceed with a class action lawsuit over an alleged BMW engine defect which causes low oil levels.

Lead plaintiffs say that a defect in the twin turbocharged N63 engine causes them to use an excessive amount of oil in a class action lawsuit filed against the car maker.

The allegedly defective engines were installed in certain 2013 through 2015 model year BMW vehicles. According to the original complaint, BMW knew of the defect but failed to do anything about it or even warn consumers.

The BMW engine defect class action lawsuit contended with headwinds shortly after it was filed in March 2019, when the car maker asked for the complaint to be dismissed.

In January, U.S. Magistrate Judge Scott T. Varholak sided with plaintiffs in a finding which recommended that the class action continue.

Judge Varholak issued a report and statement indicating that the BMW engine defect is a potential danger because the excessive oil consumption can cause unexpected engine failure, putting vehicle occupants at risk.

In another recent ruling, U.S. District Court Judge Christine M. Arguello agreed with the magistrate judge’s findings, preserving BMW engine defect class action lawsuit claims that the car maker violated Colorado consumer protection laws and is in breach of warranty.

Each of the three plaintiffs, Matthew Ingram, Rachel O’Connor, and David Cruz, claim that they purchased BMWs with the twin turbo charged N63 engines with the alleged defect between 2013 and 2015. They say that they relied on the warranties provided by BMW when deciding to purchase their vehicles.

Specifically, the lead plaintiffs contend that they relied on BMW’s promise to repair or replace defective components in the vehicles during the first four years or 50,000 miles of their ownership. However, after their purchase, they claim that their vehicles exhibited the BMW engine defect – namely excessive consumption of oil.

Further, despite reporting the problem to BMW authorized dealerships, the plaintiffs say they were only told that excessive oil consumption was normal in the vehicles. They claim they were not offered the option for repair or replacement of the defective BMW engine.

The magistrate judge’s report pointed out that BMW issued several technical service bulletins over consumer complaints about excessive oil consumption by the N63 engine.

Further, the judge referenced a 2015 study on excessive oil consumption conducted by Consumer Reports included vehicles affected by the alleged BMW engine defect.

Judge Arguello agreed with the magistrate judge’s recommendation regarding the plaintiffs’ claims for breach of warranty and violation of Colorado consumer protection laws.

Additionally, the judge agreed with the finding that it was too early to determine whether a three-year statute of limitation, or deadline, applied to the class action lawsuit claims.

“Although factual development through discovery may show that plaintiffs should have known about the alleged defect when they purchased their vehicles based on, e.g. information that was publicly available at the time, that is not conclusively established by the allegations in the operative complaint,” wrote Judge Arguello in her order.

“Rather, viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, their allegations plausibly suggest that plaintiffs were unaware of the defect and defendant concealed the fact that the engines may have been defective.”

For its part, the car maker has objected to the conclusion that the BMW engine defect class action lawsuit is not barred by the statute of limitations.

BMW contends that the plaintiffs knew or should have known of the defect at the time they purchased their vehicles because of publicly available information about excessive consumption of oil claims. BMW also asserts that the plaintiffs have not sufficiently established that the company concealed the defect from them and other consumers.

Regarding the warranty claims, Judge Arguello likewise agreed with the magistrate judge’s finding to uphold the class action lawsuit at this point in the proceedings. BMW argued that the warranty does not cover the alleged engine defect, because it is a design, rather than manufacturing defect.

“At this point in the instant case, it is unclear what type of defect, if any, resulted in the excessive oil consumption of the N63 engine,” points out Judge Arguello in her order. Later, the order concludes, “Plaintiffs, in the First Amended Complaint, plead sufficient facts to support the claim that the defect was a manufacturing defect covered by the Warranty.”

Similarly, Judge Arguello upheld the magistrate judge’s recommendation regarding the BMW engine defect class action allegations, as well as rejecting the car maker’s argument that the plaintiffs had incorrectly asserted claims on behalf of the proposed Class, otherwise known as misjoinder.

Was your vehicle affected by the alleged BMW engine defect? Tell us what happened in the comment section below!

The plaintiffs are represented by Sergei Lemberg and Vlad Hirnyk of Lemberg Law LLC.

The BMW Engine Defect Class Action Lawsuit is O’Connor, et al. v. BMW of North America, et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-03190, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado.

Read More Lawsuit & Settlement News:

Kawasaki Recalls Off-Highway Utility Vehicles Over Crash, Fire Risk

Does Johnson’s Talc Contain Asbestos?

Beware of Coronavirus Scams, FTC Warns

Can One Exposure to Asbestos Kill You?