Jeep Class Action Lawsuit Survives Motion to Dismiss

A Jeep safety defect class action lawsuit will proceed after a federal judge largely denied car company Fiat Chrysler’s motion to dismiss.

U.S. District Judge Greg Kays allowed the bulk of plaintiff David Faltermeier’s claims under the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act to go forward.

He narrowed those claims to exclude them from challenging statements by defendant FCA that constitute “mere puffery” – statements of “bluster or boast” that no reasonable consumer would rely on.

Defendant FCA has owned assets and liabilities related to Jeep vehicles since purchasing them from Chrysler in 2009.

Faltermeier claims FCA made several false representations about an alleged defect in certain Jeep vehicles – including the 2003 Jeep Liberty he purchased from a third party in 2013.

The defect at issue has to do with the vehicles’ fuel tanks. Faltermeier alleges in his Jeep class action lawsuit that because the fuel tanks are positioned behind the vehicles’ rear axle, they have an unreasonable risk of failure, fuel leakage and ignition in rear impact collisions.

According to Faltermeier, this defect can cause rear impact collisions to end in fuel fires that can be fatal to Jeep vehicle occupants who otherwise would have survived.

The statements Faltermeier takes issue with were made in the course of a disagreement between FCA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

The NHTSA had argued that a recall was in order for vehicles with the alleged defect – specifically, Jeep Grand Cherokee from model years 1993 to 2004 and Jeep Liberty from model years 2002 to 2007.

FCA disagreed with the NHTSA, claiming the vehicles were truly safe and that no recall was necessary.

In a June 2013 press release, FCA stated that “[t]he subject vehicles are safe and not defective.” The company claimed the NHTSA’s conclusions were based on incomplete analyses of the available data.

Later that same month, FCA announced a voluntary effort to modify the subject Jeep vehicles to improve their management of crash forces.

In that announcement, the company maintained that “these vehicles are not defective and are among the safest in the peer group.”

Faltermeier argues these allegedly false statements caused him and the proposed Class Members financial loss. Because of the alleged fuel tank defect, the Jeep vehicles they bought were actually worth less than what they paid for them, he claims.

In Judge Kays’ order on FCA’s motion to dismiss, he determined certain statements by FCA constituted inactionable puffery – specifically, statements that the vehicles at issue are “similar to comparable vehicles,” that they “are among the safest in their peer group,” and that FCA’s effort to remedy the alleged defect by installing  a new trailer hitch was a “campaign.”

Judge Kays dismissed Faltermeier’s claims to the extent they take issue with those statements, allowing the rest of the Jeep class action lawsuit to proceed.

Faltermeier is represented by attorneys Christopher S. Shank, David L. Heinemann and Stephen J. Moore of Shank & Moore LLP.

The Jeep Fuel Tank Safety Defect Class Action Lawsuit is Faltermeier v. FCA US LLC, Case No. 4:15-cv-00491, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri.