Subaru Must Face Faulty Windshield Class Action Lawsuit

A federal judge recently denied Subaru’s bid to dismiss a faulty windshield class action lawsuit against them saying the plaintiffs sufficiently argued their case.

On May 2, U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers denied Subaru of America Inc.’s motion to dismiss that class action filed against them by lead plaintiffs Lucia Luong and Brian Mann.

Luong and Mann filed the suit against Subaru alleging that the company sold vehicles with windshields that spontaneously crack.

“Both Luong and Mann were denied warranty coverage for replacement of their windshields,” Judge Rogers said in her decision. “Both plaintiffs allege that the value of their vehicles was affected as a result of their defective original windshields. These allegations are sufficient to allege injury in fact for purposed of [California’s Unfair Competition Law].”

Luong filed the Subaru faulty windshield class action in June 2016 and later amended the suit to include Mann. She also narrowed the proposed Class to only California residents. Luong and Mann seek to represent a Class of California residents who purchased or leased 2015-2016 Subaru Outback or Legacy vehicles which have alleged windshield defects.

In 2015, Subaru attempted to remedy the problem by offering extended car warranties, but the Subaru class action alleges that only certain drivers received the extension. The Subaru windshield class action lawsuit also claims that drivers who had their windshield repaired under the new warranty received equally defective parts.

Subaru filed their dismissal bid in October 2016, arguing that the plaintiffs were only unhappy with the extended warranty and replacement windshields. Judge Rogers denied this reasoning saying that the amended complaint met the legal requirements. She also stated that the plaintiffs hadn’t separated their claims for the original windshields and the replacement windshields.

“Plaintiffs’ claims make no such distinction,” Judge Rogers stated. “Both plaintiffs allege that the windshields original to their Subaru vehicles, though manufactured at different times, were equally defective.”

Subaru also claimed that the plaintiffs failed to show they have evidence that the windshields are defective. Since they lacked evidence, Subaru argued, they could not make claims for fraudulent omissions. However, Judge Rogers stated that the plaintiffs showed evidence of prior testing, analyses, and consumer complaints to sufficiently back up their fraudulent omissions claims.

Additionally, Subaru claimed that under the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act their claims were invalid, having not proved future harm. Similar to their prior arguments, Judge Rogers found the plaintiffs’ arguments sufficient. “Because plaintiffs contest whether Subaru’s program actually cured the defect of which they complain, the extended warranty program does not moot their claim,” she stated.

Judge Rogers also found that the plaintiffs claims of breach of implied and express warranty were valid. She stated that the pair sufficiently showed they were privy to a contract with Subaru.

In total, Luong and Mann brought six claims in violation of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Law, and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. Their breach of implied warranty claim was brought under the California Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. They also brought breach of express warranty and fraudulent omission claims. Judge Rogers allowed all of the claims to move forward.

Luong and Mann are represented by Lionel Z. Glancy and Mark S. Greenstone of Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP.

The Subaru Defective Windshield Class Action Lawsuit is Luong v. Subaru of America Inc., Case No. 4:17-cv-03160, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.