Appeals Court Denies Prius Fuel Tank 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.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Wednesday that a couple who purchased a Toyota Prius in Pennsylvania can’t continue a class action lawsuit alleging that 2004-2009 Prius models contain a fuel tank defect, affirming a lower court decision that the alleged problem isn’t covered under warranty.

Plaintiffs Henry and Veronica Troup alleged in the class action lawsuit that the Prius models were manufactured with a flexible fuel bladder rather than the standard steel or plastic gas tank, which causes the bladder to shrink in cold weather and reduce the amount of gas the tank can hold by nearly half the advertised capacity. The plaintiffs alleged Toyota had failed to meet standards for express warranty, but the 9th Circuit ruled that the basic warranty protected buyers from “defects in materials or workmanship” and not design choices.

Materials react to temperatures and change volume, and engineers describe the difference in rates based on what is called the co-efficient of thermal expansion. According to the original class action lawsuit, Toyota used a resin for a plasticine bladder that expanded and contracted significantly more than other materials commonly used in the construction of fuel tanks and bladders. As a result, the capacity was significantly less when it contracted in cold weather and could only hold as little as six gallons out of its 11.9 gallon capacity, according to the class action lawsuit.

Recent California decisions regarding breach of implied warranties regarding automobiles focus chiefly on safety and whether or not the vehicle can be driven at all. The 9th Circuit noted in its Nov. 20 decision that the plaintiffs “failed to alleged that their Prius was unfit for its intended purpose, [as it did not] drastically reduce its mileage range,” adding that the alleged defect “merely required the Troups to refuel more often.”

In addition to ruling that the design of the fuel tank did not meet the scope of Toyota’s warranty, the appeals court also noted that the plaintiffs lacked standing to seek damages related to California’s Unfair Competition Law. Similarly, the inability to state a claim due to the aforementioned express and implied warranties pre-empted them from filing their class action lawsuit under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

The plaintiffs are represented by Steve W. Berman, Erin K. Flory and Robert B. Carey of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.

The Prius Fuel Tank Class Action Lawsuit is Henry Troup, et al. v. Toyota Motor Corp., et al., Case No. 11-cv-56637, in the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.