Subaru Hood Defect Class Action Lawsuit Ends in Settlement

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.

Parties have reached a settlement in a Subaru class action lawsuit alleging the hood in some Subaru vehicles can fly open while the vehicle is moving.

In a short letter to U.S. District Judge Robert B. Kugler, the attorney for defendant Subaru said the parties have agreed on the terms of a settlement and are working on reducing those terms to a written document.

Since they have reached a settlement, the parties have asked the judge to cancel an upcoming status conference. The letter does not mention any details of the settlement’s terms.

Plaintiff Marion Hadley initiated this Subaru class action lawsuit in October 2016. She claimed the hood on the 2006 Subaru B9 Tribeca has a defect that causes it to pop open spontaneously, sometimes while the vehicle is moving at highway speed.

Hadley alleged the hood in her own Subaru flew open without warning in May 2015, while she was traveling at 65 miles per hour.

She said she managed to pull over to the side of the road despite having her view of the road blocked by the open hood. The impact of the hood cracked her windshield and knocked the rearview mirror out of place, she claimed.

When she later contacted Subaru about the problem, she says the automaker essentially stonewalled her. The plaintiff claims Subaru refused to take responsibility for the defect, cover the cost of repairs, or even have service personnel look at her vehicle.

Hadley said several other drivers of the same Subaru make and model have experienced the same defect. Many of them complained about it in various Internet forums, she claimed.

The plaintiff says she later found out that the same alleged defect had been reported 17 times to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

She argued that since car manufacturers closely monitor NHTSA complaints about their vehicles, Subaru must have been aware of the alleged hood defect. She notes the company failed to issue a recall in response to the complaints.

Hadley alleged the defect deprives owners and lessees of the B9 Tribeca of the full value of the vehicles, in addition to creating obvious safety issues.

She argued Subaru’s actions violated the federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. Her Subaru class action lawsuit also raised claims for common law fraud and breach of express warranty.

Hadley proposed to represent a nationwide Class of all persons who bought or leased a 2006 B9 Tribeca from Subaru.

She estimates that Subaru sold at least 18,000 of the vehicles at issue. Hadley also sought to represent a subclass consisting of Class Members from Pennsylvania.

She sought an award of damages, restitution and disgorgement of profits, and a court order requiring Subaru to repair, recall or replace the vehicles at issue and to extend those vehicle’s warranties.

Hadley is represented by attorneys Benjamin Elga, Taylor Asen, William H. Anderson and Charles J. LaDuca of Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca LLP.

The Subaru Hood Defect Class Action Lawsuit is Hadley v. Subaru of America Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-07210, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.