Mercedes-Benz Class Action Alleges Paint Defect Leads to Corrosion

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.

On Wednesday, Mercedes-Benz USA LLC and Daimler AG were hit with a class action lawsuit alleging vehicles with Mars Red paint have a defect that causes the paint to bubble, peel and flake off, leading to rusting and corrosion.

Ten plaintiffs filed the Mercedes-Benz class action lawsuit in New Jersey federal court on behalf of themselves and a proposed Class of owners and lessees with Mercedes-Benz automobiles with Mars Red paint sold in the United States.

The court documents indicate that Mars Red is an automotive paint color made by PPG Industries Inc. It is also commonly known as Fire Opal and was used by Mercedes between 2004 and 2017. Mercedes identifies the color by paint code 590 and PPG identifies the color by paint code 905264.

According to the Mercedes-Benz class action lawsuit, the Mars Red paint defect manifests over time and causes the exterior clearcoat to bubble, peel and flake off, leading to rusting and corrosion which decreases the vehicles’ value.

The plaintiffs note that the Class Vehicles include a variety of models and model years of Mercedes-Benz automobiles, but they say the paint used and the process used to apply the paint was identical for all of the Class Vehicles.

They allege that degradation of the coatings, either due to the defective nature of the materials or the improper manner in which they were applied during the painting process, causes a loss of adhesion that manifests as peeling.

The Mercedes-Benz class action lawsuit states that the Mercedes defendants have been aware of the paint defect but concealed it from consumers while continuing to market its vehicles as “state-of-the-art,” “fine craftsmanship,” “luxury,” “enduring quality,” and “the most advanced vehicles on the road.”

The plaintiffs assert that Mercedes had a duty to disclose the paint defect at the time of sale, including the risk of rusting and corrosion and associated loss of value that could occur upon manifestation of the paint defect.

“Further, Defendants have refused, and continued to refuse, to provide a meaningful remedy to those who have suffered economic harm as a result of the Paint Defect,” the Mercedes class action lawsuit says.

Mercedes either provided the affected car owners and lessees with inadequate repairs or forced them to pay out of pocket for inadequate repairs, even when the vehicles were still under warranty, the Mercedes paint defect class action lawsuit alleges.

The plaintiffs claim that, as a result of the Mercedes defendants’ failure to disclose the paint defect, they overpaid for their vehicle because the paint defect significantly diminishes the value of the vehicles, they must suffer from premature rusting and corrosion or they must pay a significant sum of money to have the vehicle repainted inadequately and any corrosion or rust damage repaired.

The Mercedes class action lawsuit asserts claims for fraudulent concealment, unjust enrichment, violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, breach of express warranty, and violations of various state consumer protection and warranty laws. The plaintiffs are seeking damages, injunctive relief, equitable relief and declaratory relief.

The plaintiffs are represented by James E. Cecchi and Caroline F. Bartlett of Carella Byrne Cecchi Olstein Brody & Agnello PC; Mark J. Dearman, Stuart A. Davidson, Jason H. Alperstein and Eric Dwoskin of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP; and by Steven G. Calamusa, Robert E. Gordon and Daniel G. Williams of Gordon & Doner PA.

The Mercedes-Benz Paint Defect Class Action Lawsuit is Robert Ponzio, et al. v. Mercedes-Benz USA LLC, et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-12544-JHR-JS, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.