Judge Limits Claims In Nissan Engine Defect Class Action Lawsuit

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 federal judge has narrowed claims in a Nissan engine defect class action lawsuit, citing the statute of limitations.

U.S. District Judge Denise Casper issued an order last week allowing drivers in a Nissan class action lawsuit to sue Nissan Motor Co. alleging breach of contract, breach of express warranty, unjust enrichment, and violations of federal and Massachusetts consumer protection laws.

However, Judge Casper trimmed claims for breach of implied warranty and violation of Colorado, Oregon, Texas, and North Carolina protection laws, stating that these charges fall outside of the statute of limitations.

Before the ruling, Nissan sought to have the breach of express warranty claims thrown out, claiming that the express warranties are only an agreement to service problems within the agreed time and mileage restrictions. Nissan offers a basic warranty for 36,000 or 36 months and a powertrain warranty for 60,000 miles or 60 months.

Despite Nissan’s argument, Judge Casper found that the plaintiffs’ claim was strong enough to proceed. “The plaintiffs have pled a lack of meaningful choice over the terms of the warranty, a disparity of bargaining power, a purposeful limitation of the warranty period to exclude the defect, and a defect known at the time of sale to the manufacturer but concealed from the purchases,” Judge Casper wrote. “Moreover, the defect known at the time of sale to the manufacturer was not necessarily the kind of defect that all manufacturers would necessarily know by testing different components for failure rates.”

Nissan also sought to have the breach of contract claim tossed, stating that it was redundant to the breach of warranty claims. Judge Casper said the proposed Class does not need to decide now which claim it will argue.

The Nissan class action lawsuit was filed in October 2016 by plaintiff Sarah Duncan. Duncan allegedly purchased a 2007 Nissan Maxima in 2010 and learned of an engine defect in 2016 when her car had 127,000 miles on it. Nissan allegedly refused to pay her $1,500 repair bill.

The Nissan engine defect claims that Nissan hid a defect in its timing chain tensioning system. The problem is allegedly caused by a plastic component in the system which is prone to wearing away, and can damage cars’ engines and force drivers into large repair bills. The Nissan class action argues that Nissan opted to tell dealerships of the problem but did not tell consumers, despite the potential safety risk.

Duncan proposed to represent a Class of all persons in the United States who purchased or leased the Class vehicles. The proposed Class vehicles include 2004-2006 Nissan Altima vehicles, 2004-2009 Nissan Quest vehicles, 2004-2008 Nissan Maxima vehicles, 2005-2010 Nissan Frontier vehicles, 2005-2010 Nissan Xterra vehicles, and 2005-2010 Nissan Pathfinder vehicles.

The plaintiffs are represented by Gary Steven Graifman and Jay Brody of Kantrowitz Goldhamer & Graifman PC; Howard Longman and Patrick Slyne of Stull Stull & Brody; Adam Stewart and Thomas Shapiro of Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP.

The Nissan Engine Defect Class Action Lawsuit is Duncan, et al. v. Nissan North America Inc., et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-12120, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

UPDATE: On Dec. 3, 2018, the plaintiffs in a Nissan engine defect class action lawsuit contend that their proposed Class should be certified.

UPDATE 2: On Feb. 14, 2020, Nissan has agreed to pay $6 million to settle the Nissan engine defect class action lawsuit. Learn more here.