Chrysler Can’t Shake Dodge Ram ‘Death Wobble’ 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.

A California federal judge last week ruled that Chrysler Group LLC can’t escape a class action lawsuit accusing the automaker of concealing defects in some Dodge Ram pickup trucks that cause them to suddenly lose steering control and shake excessively.

On Feb. 20, U.S. District Judge Virginia A. Phillips granted in part and denied in part Chrysler’s motion to dismiss the Dodge Ram class action lawsuit, tossing the warranty claims but keeping claims related to implied warranty and consumer protection violations.

Dodge Ram pickup owners filed the class action lawsuit last April following a series of recalls issued by Chrysler. The class action lawsuit alleges that model year 2008-2012 Dodge Ram pickups have defective tie-rods, which are a “crucial link” in the vehicle’s steering system.

The Dodge Ram class action lawsuit further alleges that the defective tie rods can cause the vehicles to shake violently and/or result in extreme front-end vibrations the plaintiffs call a “death wobble.”

According to the plaintiffs’ second amended complaint, death wobbles start when one tire hits a groove or a bump in the road that can only be controlled by bringing the vehicle to a stop. The class action lawsuit further alleges that the tie-rod ball studs in the defective Dodge Ram models are too weak to withstand normal use.

Chrysler filed a motion to dismiss the Dodge Ram steering class action lawsuit in November, arguing that the warranties attached to the trucks did not promise there were no defects in the vehicles.

The warranty “does nothing other than extend Chrysler Group’s obligation to ‘pay the cost of all parts and labor needed to repair any item’ during the warranty’s time-mileage durational limits,” Chrysler wrote in its motion to dismiss. “Indeed, courts recognize that a promise to repair actually acts as a warning that the product at issue may fail.”

Further, argues Chrysler, the plaintiffs do not claim that Chrysler refused repairs they asked for before the warranty expired.

Judge Phillips agreed with Chrysler and dismissed the express warranty claims.

“The [new vehicle limited warranty (NVLW)] disclaims all other express warranties,” the judge wrote in her order, “and plaintiffs allege they relied on the NVLW when purchasing the trucks. Hence, the representations made by Chrysler on its website and elsewhere were not part of any express warranty; plaintiffs’ express warranty claims, to the extent they are premised on such statements, are dismissed without leave to amend.”

Chrysler had also argued that the plaintiffs’ claim of breach of implied warranty should be dismissed. However, Judge Phillips refused to dismiss those claims.

Chrysler argued that because it issued recalls providing reimbursement to owners who have already paid to repair the alleged defect, the express warranty should negate any implied warranty. As such, Chrysler argued that if the plaintiffs’ claims of breach of expressed or implied warranty claims failed, then their claims under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act should have also failed.

“Chrysler first argues that because the ‘vehicles performed without incident throughout the duration . . . of the implied warranty’ Plaintiffs may not assert a claim for its breach,” explained Judge Phillips in her order.

“Essentially, Chrysler thinks it cannot be liable for breach of implied warranty if the defects manifested outside the time limits of the warranty,” she continued.

“Although some courts disagree,” the judge concluded, “California law recognizes that discovery of a latent defect outside the statutory time limit of an implied warranty can amount to a breach, so Chrysler’s argument fails.”

The plaintiffs are represented by class action lawsuit attorneys Steven L. Marchbanks of Premier Legal Center APC and by Robert G. Loewy of the Law Office of Robert G. Loewy PC.

The Dodge Ram Steering Defect Class Action Lawsuit is Shaun Sater, et al. v. Chrysler Group LLC, Case No. 14-cv-00700, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

UPDATE: On March 20, 2017, a California federal judge indicated that she would preliminarily approve a proposed $3.1 million class action settlement over an alleged Dodge Ram steering defect, but asked that claimants be granted 180 days to cash their checks instead of the proposed 60-day check cashing period.

UPDATE 2: The California Dodge Ram steering defect class action settlement is now open. Click here for information.