Mercedes-Benz class action lawsuit overview:
- Who: A federal judge dismissed a class action lawsuit against Mercedes-Benz USA LLC and Mercedes-Benz Group AG.
- Why: The judge ruled the plaintiffs failed to provide evidence of a defect in the panoramic sunroofs in their vehicles.
- Where: The Mercedes-Benz class action lawsuit was filed in Georgia federal court.
A federal judge has dismissed a class action lawsuit against Mercedes-Benz alleging the panoramic sunroofs in their vehicles are defective and shatter under normal driving conditions.
U.S. District Judge Thomas W. Thrash Jr. granted Mercedes-Benz’s motion for summary judgment, ruling the plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient evidence of a defect in the sunroofs.
The plaintiffs — Natalie Bolling, Shawn Hale, Lisa Phlegar and Latoya Foster-Gittens — alleged their sunroofs shattered without warning, causing glass to fall into the passenger compartment. They sought damages under several state and common law claims, including breach of warranty, fraudulent concealment and unjust enrichment.
In 2024, Thrash trimmed the lawsuit, throwing out claims of unjust enrichment but allowed claims of fraudulent concealment, breach of implied warranty and claims under several state consumer protection laws to remain.
Mercedes-Benz argued the plaintiffs failed to produce the shattered sunroofs during discovery, making it impossible to determine whether the sunroofs were damaged by road debris or another external influence.
The automaker also presented an expert opinion stating that without the sunroof glass, it was impossible to perform a root cause failure analysis to determine if a defect existed.
Mercedes-Benz class action failed to prove defect existed, judge says
Thrash agreed with Mercedes-Benz, finding the plaintiffs failed to provide evidence that a defect existed in the sunroofs. He noted the plaintiffs’ eyewitness accounts of the sunroofs shattering without external force were insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact.
“Even if the court were to take the plaintiffs’ eyewitness testimony or the other consumer reports that the [panoramic sunroofs] broke without any external force at face value, there is parallel evidence that the defendants can point to that shows that no manufacturing defect existed at or near the time of breakage,” Thrash wrote in the order.
The judge also found the plaintiffs failed to provide expert testimony to rebut Mercedes-Benz’s expert opinion or to supply independent analysis of a potential manufacturing defect.
“The plaintiffs could have provided an expert that conducted his or her own analysis to rebut [Mercedes-Benz’s expert opinion] or supply independent analysis as to what type of manufacturing defect could have existed within the [panoramic sunroofs],” Thrash wrote. “But the plaintiffs fail to present any evidence that shows how the defendants caused the manufacturing defect.”
What do you think of the judge’s decision to dismiss the Mercedes-Benz class action lawsuit? Let us know in the comments.
The plaintiffs are represented by J. Cameron Tribble of the Barnes Law Group LLC, Robert Brent Irby of Lyons Irby LLC, James M. Terrell of Methvin Terrell Yancey Stephens & Miller P.C. and Eric D. Barton of Wagstaff & Cartmell.
The Mercedes-Benz class action lawsuit is Bolling, et al. v. Mercedes-Benz USA LLC, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-671-TWT, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.
Don’t Miss Out!
Check out our list of Class Action Lawsuits and Class Action Settlements you may qualify to join!
Read About More Class Action Lawsuits & Class Action Settlements:
