Volvo Battery-Draining Defect Class Action Should Continue, Plaintiff Says

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.

A plaintiff is opposing a motion by Volvo Cars of North America LLC to dismiss a class action lawsuit alleging satellite radio receivers installed in their vehicles quickly drain car batteries.

Plaintiff Theresa Jenner alleges Volvo knowingly sold vehicles with the defective satellite receivers that prematurely drained car batteries, but hid the defect from consumers.

According to the Volvo class action lawsuit, once Jenner learned about the defect, she had to pay extra money to fix it in order to have a fully-functioning car.

According to the Volvo class action lawsuit, a software defect causes the satellite receivers to constantly search for a signal—even if the vehicle’s owner doesn’t subscribe to the satellite radio service.

Further, the satellite receiver continues to search for a signal even if the vehicle isn’t running. This constant search for the signal quickly drains car batteries, Jenner says.

Jenner initially filed the Volvo class action lawsuit in August 2015, claiming her Volvo’s car battery died twice in less than six months due to the satellite receiver software defect.

Volvo has tried to dismiss the class action lawsuit, but its efforts have been unsuccessful so far.

“Volvo’s motion to dismiss Jenner’s complaint is an exercise in distraction and confusion,” Jenner argues in opposition to Volvo’s latest attempt to escape the class action lawsuit. She accuses the car maker of putting forth several irrelevant arguments that do not warrant dismissal.

Jenner accuses Volvo of going to “great lengths” to distract the court from the multiple examples she has found of Volvo drivers complaining on public internet forums about the premature draining of batteries due to the satellite receiver software defect.

“But there is no reason for the Court to ignore these allegations,” Jenner argues, pointing out that there is no law that prohibits the use of information contained in public internet forums to demonstrate that a manufacturer knew about a product defect.

Jenner also points out that she used multiple examples in her Volvo class action lawsuit to show the car maker was aware of the defect.

In addition to complaints in public internet forums, her lawsuit included results of a Google search for “Volvo s40 battery keeps dying,” which brought up more than 20 links; four technical service bulletins issued by Volvo regarding the battery drainage problem; and the software upgrade Volvo created to remedy the defect.

“Jenner’s allegations make clear beyond doubt that Volvo was never an innocent bystander to an unforeseen situation involving a latent defect in its cars,” Jenner argues. “Rather, every reasonable inference to be drawn from Jenner’s allegations shows that Volvo—which was silent as Jenner and others bought and drove cars with a constant and widely reported battery-draining defect—knowingly concealed the problem.”

The plaintiff has asked the court to deny Volvo’s dismissal bid in its entirety.

Jenner is represented by Christopher Markos and Michael J. Quirk of Williams Cuker Berezofsky LLC, Marc R. Stanley and Martin Woodward of Stanley Law Group, Andrew S. Kierstead of the Law Office of Andrew Kierstead and Peter N. Wasylyk of the Law Offices of Peter N. Wasylyk.

The Volvo Battery-Draining Defect Class Action Lawsuit is Theresa Jenner v. Volvo Cars North America LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-06152, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.