Honda Class Action Over Rodent-Chewed Wire Coatings Is Dismissed

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.

A California federal judge has dismissed a class action lawsuit alleging Honda Motor Co. Inc. produced vehicles with soy-based or bio-based wire coatings that attract rodents that chew through the wires and cause a power steering malfunction.

In his May 24 order, U.S. District Judge Manuel L. Real found that the plaintiffs failed to allege which components in Honda vehicles were soy-based or bio-based, and that they failed to provide factual support for their claim that these coatings attract rodents.

He found that the allegations failed under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act.

Plaintiffs Michael Preston and Penelope Turgeon had argued that the real question that should be considered was whether the parts that had to be replaced were defective because they had to be covered with a special rodent tape to prevent damage. Judge Real did not agree with this argument.

“Properly functioning wires are not rendered defective simply because rodents enjoy chewing on them,” the judge wrote. “That rodent tape serves as a deterrent does not mean the wires are defective unless wrapped in tape.”

Preston and Turgeon initially filed the Honda class action lawsuit in May 2017 in Illinois federal court. It was later transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

Preston claims he leased a 2015 Honda Accord, which lost power steering within the new vehicle warranty period. He took the vehicle to the dealership for repairs and was told that rodents had chewed through wiring, making it necessary to replace certain power steering parts. The dealership did not cover the repairs under warranty and Preston was reportedly provided with a repair invoice for more than $2,000.

Turgeon says she leased a Honda Civic Hatchback in May 2017. In July, the vehicle allegedly lost power steering. When she took the vehicle back to the dealership, she says she was told that damage to the electronic power steering harness was caused by rodents that chewed through wires. The dealership replaced the power steering hub harness and wiring, and covered the wiring with special rodent tape.

She says she experienced another loss of power steering less than two weeks after the repair, and she again replaced the power steering harness and applied rodent tape. Neither repair was covered under warranty, the Honda class action lawsuit says.

Preston and Turgeon claim that all new Hondas purchased or leased from an authorized Honda dealership in Illinois between May 2014 and May 2017 are defective because they contain soy-based or bio-based components that attract rodents which chew on the wires and can cause a power steering malfunction.

According to the Honda class action lawsuit, the car company knew that the vehicles were susceptible to damage by rodents because they sold a special rodent tape. Honda did not inform consumers that the wire coatings could attract rodents that can damage the vehicle, the plaintiffs claim.

Judge Real rejected the claim that Honda’s use of rodent tape suggests Honda knew that the vehicles are defective, instead finding that the rodent tape could be indicative of good customer service because the company identified a problem and developed solution.

He also found that the claims that Honda’s failure to mention the rodent damage would not be covered by warranty failed because the plaintiffs didn’t show a causal link between the promotion of the warranty and their decision to lease the vehicles.

Preston and Turgeon are represented by Stephanie Tatar of Tatar Law Firm APC, Larry Smith of SmithMarco PC and Stacy Bardo of Bardo Law PC.

The Honda Rodent-Chewed Wire Coating Class Action Lawsuit is Michael Preston, et al. v. American Honda Motor Company Inc., Case No. 2:18-cv-00038, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.