A federal judge on Monday refused to dismiss a proposed class action lawsuit accusing BMW of North America LLC of selling defective tires sold by Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations LLC, saying the plaintiff sufficiently pleaded that the companies may have known about the alleged defects. Both companies are named as defendants in the case.
New Jersey BMW 335i lessee David Greene alleges in the class action lawsuit that he noticed structural deformities in three of the four Bridgestone Potenza run-flat tires on his vehicle and had to have them replaced in order to drive a vehicle that was safe on the road.
Greene had alleged a violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and that the auto maker “knew with certainty that the tires would fail… on information and belief.”
Judge William S. Martini decided this argument satisfied the pleading standard because the Second Circuit Court of Appeals had previously decided that the plausibility can be reach by a plaintiff “pleading facts… where the facts are peculiarly within the possession of the defendant[.]”
In this case, clear evidence of whether or not BMW knew that Bridgestone’s Potenza run-flat tires were defective would be unknown to a regular consumer, but could still be demonstrated as part of a breach of implied warranty claim. Judge Martini also gave Greene the benefit of the doubt in what appeared to be a typographical error in the second amended complaint.
In the first class action lawsuit, his legal team had sought to certify a Class of “consumers who purchased or leased a 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012 BMW vehicle… that came equipped with Bridgestone Potenza run-flat tires… and whose tires had to be prematurely replaced as a result of their significantly reduced useful life” compared to other options. A revision of the complaint included tires that had gone flat, but Greene alleged that he meant to maintain the original language, and Judge Martini will allow him to proceed under that Class definition.
The putative plaintiffs are represented by class action attorneys Barry R. Eichen and Daryl Zaslow of Eichen Crutchlow Zaslow & McElroy LLP and Justin M. Klein of Marks & Klein LLP.
The BMW Defective Tire Class Action Lawsuit is David Greene v. BMW of North America, et al., Case No. 11-cv-04220, in U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey.
ATTORNEY ADVERTISING
Top Class Actions is a Proud Member of the American Bar Association
LEGAL INFORMATION IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE
Top Class Actions Legal Statement
©2008 – 2024 Top Class Actions® LLC
Various Trademarks held by their respective owners
This website is not intended for viewing or usage by European Union citizens.
13 thoughts onClass Action Over BMW Bridgestone Run-Flat Tires Can Proceed
I replaced five Potenza Run-flats on my 2015 BMW 335iX in five months between February – June of 2019. Bridgestone is refunding me for one tire, cheap SOBs. I reached out to BMW and they refused to do anything. Cost me $2,300 in tire replacement and then had to sell the POS BMW because it is NOT DRIVEABLE equipped as it is. What really burns me is that BMW knows full well that they are selling a car to customers that is unsafe and defective.
I leased a 2015 bmw with run flat tires, replaced 2 of them within 14 months, turned the car in at 36 months with 30k miles. 2 front tires had only sidewall excessive wear, got a bill for $900 for 3 tires. Ill never buy or lease a car with those tires again! How do I dispute this bill on them awful tires?
I have a 2015 Cadillac ATS with Bridgestone Potenza RE050A RFTs. 225/35R/19 front 255/30R/19 rear. In one year and less than 20,000 miles I’ve had to replace 3 tires due to side wall failure. Each one bulges at some point and pulls away from the rim lip, breaking the seal and leaking air. This last one happened 150 miles from home on a Sunday evening costing not only another 430 for the tire but a tow, a nights stay in a hotel and missed day of work. These tires are flawed and should be recalled and those of us unfortunate enough to have bought a car with them, reimbursed.
I also have run flats on my 650I they are a pos. I would never buy a car again with them. I didn’t know when I bought the car they had them. It’s in the shop now with rear replaced. Over a thousand dollars to put 2 on. BMW = Bust My Wallet. Stupid me ! How do I get on that class action I own 2 BMWs both are going to be replaced.
What was the result of this class action lawsuit. I also have the same Potenza tires that after 24,000 miles and they are extremely worn.
I have not received any letters including me in the lawsuit. They are factory installed tires from Nissan on a 2012 370Z.
Thanks in advance,
Hyll Kulla
I have a 2012 X5d tires are bald after 20k miles.
I’ve replaced three Bridgestone potenza’s on my BMW 645ci.
I have run flat tires on my BMW x5 and only have about 12k miles on my SUV. Need to replace tires. Nail in one tire and went flat. Can I participate in a class action?
MY 2009 bmw came with the Bridges tone run flats, and had to replace 3 tires with less than 30,000 miles . The two front tires wore out from the inner core inside of the tire. The rear got flat from a nail. I believe manufacture defect. How do I file a claim.
I have a 2007 Nissan Quest with no run flat tires where I have had to replace them at least 5 times since I brought the car. The only reason I brought the van was for the tires. What they don’t tell you is that you have to go to a special shop that has the equipment to take off the tires. There was only 3 places all three were at least a hour drive to them. Also the tire are over $300.00 dollars a piece. I will never buy these tire again once I buy a new car. To replace them is very expensive . You have to replace the tire and the rim and all the tires at the same time