Judge Dismisses Kia Fuel Tank Defect Class Action Lawsuit

Top Class Actions’s website and social media posts use affiliate links. If you make a purchase using such links, we may receive a commission, but it will not result in any additional charges to you. Please review our Affiliate Link Disclosure for more information.

On Monday, a California federal judge dismissed a class action lawsuit alleging Kia Motors Corp. of manufacturing vehicles with a dangerous fuel tank defect, but has given the plaintiffs leave to amend the complaint.

The class action lawsuit was filed on behalf of a class of owners of Kia vehicles with defective gas tanks. The plaintiffs allege that they chose to purchase the Kia vehicles based on advertisements that promoted the quality and safety of the vehicles. It was only after they purchased the vehicles that they learned about a gas tank defect that increased the risk that the fuel tank would dislodge and ignite during a collision. According to the class action lawsuit, these defects led to “at least one accident” in Texas, which resulted in three deaths after the fuel tank exploded.

Although the plaintiffs do not claim that their vehicles exploded due to the gas tank defect, they claim that they would not have purchased the vehicles (or would have paid less for them) if they had known about the gas tank defect. They filed the class action lawsuit on behalf of anyone who purchased Kia vehicle with the gas tank defect. The defective vehicles include 2010-2013 models of the Kia Soul, Kia Soul Plus, Kia Soul Exclaim and Kia Soul Sport.

The second amended class action lawsuit alleged violations of the California Unfair Competition Law, Consumer Legal Remedies Act and False Advertising Law, as well as breach of implied warranty of merchantability and fraudulent concealment.

Kia sought to dismiss the class action lawsuit, arguing that the plaintiffs did not have standing because they did not suffer an actual injury. U.S. District Judge Andrew L. Guilford disagreed, finding the plaintiffs had standing to bring the class action lawsuit because they sufficiently pleaded that they suffered economic harm from the vehicle defect.

Kia argued that differences between the vehicle models would prevent the plaintiffs from adequately representing Class Members. However, the judge disagreed. “It may be that the differences between the models are material and substantial enough that Plaintiffs cannot represent the owners of all of them,” the judge wrote. “But these are questions of adequacy, typicality, or predominance of common issues, issues better resolved at the class certification stage.”

In its motion to dismiss the class action lawsuit, Kia argued that the plaintiffs failed to allege which advertisements they relied on when choosing to purchase a Kia vehicle. Further, they were unable to remember the specifics of Kia advertisements they had seen. Judge Guilford sided with Kia, finding that these “allegations leave Defendants to guess which, if any, of the promotional materials Plaintiffs relied on.”

Kia moved to strike the nationwide class allegations, but the judge refused finding that it was premature to strike such claims before discovery has begun.

Plaintiffs are represented by Elaine T. Byszewski, Steve W. Berman and Sean R. Matt of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP and Mark P. Robinson Jr. of Robinson Calcagnie Robinson Shapiro Davis Inc.

The Kia Fuel Tank Defect Class Action Lawsuit is Constance Sims, et al. v. Kia Motors America Inc., et al., Case No. 8:13-cv-01791, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.