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.
Last Wednesday, Subaru of America Inc. was named in an oil burning defect class action lawsuit and faces allegations of knowingly selling defective Subaru vehicles.
According to the Subaru class action lawsuit, certain models of Subaru Forester, Legacy, Outback, and Crosstek vehicles allegedly contained defective piston rings that increased the amount of engine oil consumption and burning. This defect can reportedly lead to engine failure and possibly cause accidents.
The class action lawsuit allegations also claim that Subaru knew of this defect and actively concealed it from consumers. The complaint states, “[Subaru] did not reveal that the existence of the defect would diminish the intrinsic and resale value of the class vehicles and lead to the safety concerns described herein[.]”
The original Subaru oil burning defect class action lawsuit was filed in New Jersey federal court by California resident Keith Yaeger and Florida resident Michael Schuler. Both lead plaintiffs bought brand new Subaru vehicles from authorized Subaru dealers in their respective states. Yaeger bought a 2014 Subaru Forester 2.5L and Schuler purchased a 2013 Subaru Outback 2.5L.
In their Subaru class action lawsuit, Yaeger and Schuler allege they individually discovered the oil burning defect when they had to take their Subaru vehicles in for maintenance ahead of the suggested oil change schedule. The plaintiffs allege they were forced to do so to avoid engine failure due to the “unacceptable rate” of oil consumption.
Additionally, Yaeger and Schuler claim that even when they took in their vehicles to Subaru dealerships for work and maintenance, Subaru allegedly did nothing to correct the pistol ring and oil consumption defect.
According to the oil burning defect class action lawsuit:
“Subaru has also refused to take any action to correct this concealed design defect when it manifests in the Class Vehicles outside of the warranty period. Since the Oil Consumption Defect typically manifests within and/or shortly outside of the warranty period for the Class Vehicles – and given Defendants’ knowledge of this concealed, safety related design defect – any attempt by Subaru to limit the warranty with respect to the Oil Consumption Defect is unconscionable here.”
In response to these allegations, Subaru has changed their online vehicle information to state that some car models consume oil at a higher rate, but according to the class action lawsuit, “has not recalled the Class Vehicles to repair the Oil Consumption Defect[.]” The car maker has also reportedly neglected to offer to repair or replace the defective parts free of charge or reimbursed Subaru car owners for the financial burden of having to constantly repair or maintain the vehicle due to the alleged oil consumption defect.
According to dealer and consumer reports submitted to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the Subaru oil consumption defect includes the following Subaru car year and models that are also named in the class action lawsuit: 2011-14 Subaru Forester 2.5L, 2013 Legacy 2.5L, 2013 Outback 2.5L, 2012-13 Impreza 2.0L and 2013 XV Crosstek 2.0L vehicles.
The Subaru oil burning defect class action lawsuit alleges Subaru violated California and New Jersey state consumer protection laws, breached warranty, and committed common law fraud. Yaeger, Schuler, and their legal counsel are seeking to certify a Class of Subaru consumers nationwide who ever owned or leased the defective vehicles, as well as subclasses of California, Florida, and New Jersey car consumers.
Keith Yaeger and Michael Schuler are represented by Joseph G. Sauder, Matthew D. Schelkopf and Benjamin F. Johns of Chimicles & Tikellis LLP.
The Subaru Oil Burning Defect Class Action Lawsuit is Yaeger, et al. v. Subaru of America Inc., et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-04490, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.
UPDATE: On Jan. 4, 2016, the plaintiffs asked the court to grant preliminary approval to a proposed settlement of the Subaru oil burning defect class action lawsuit.
UPDATE 2: On Apr. 12, 2016, the Subaru oil burning settlement is now open! Click here to file a Claim Form or visit www.OilConsumption.SettlementClass.com for details.
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.
24 thoughts onSubaru Faces a Nationwide Oil Burning Defect Class Action Lawsuit
I bought a 2009 Subaru Outback Xt on 09/03/2016 at Subaru of South Charlotte, North Carolina. I was in need of a vehicle that had better gas mileage since I was changing careers from law enforcement to sales. The day after I purchased the vehicle the check engine light came on and I brought the vehicle to the service department. The service department stated that the vehicle was traded in and bought so quickly that they must have missed the sensor that it needed. I was understanding and hoped that there were going to be no other issues with the vehicle. Nevertheless, on 12/27/16 the vehicle’s engine began knocking and losing power to the point to where it cut off just as I rolled into the parking lot at work. No lights emitted on the dash board and there were no signs of leaking fluids. I had purchased an oil change approximately two weeks prior to this incident and all work was completed correctly. I had to have the vehicle towed to a mechanic and they advised me that I would have to purchase a new engine. So, now I have a vehicle that is sitting in my yard and is a long way from being paid off and on top of that I have to buy an engine for it. Also, I have had to purchase another car for $2500 just to get around. I only had the vehicle four months when the engine blew. I did not purchase the extended warranty for this vehicle because I could not afford the extra expense so now I’m completely screwed…Just seems wrong.
My 2009 subaru legacy just ran into the same problem. Loud knocking on the engine. Mechanic said engine needs to be replaced. Cause of the issue was due to low oil. No warning lights ever came on. Been pretty good with regular oil changes. i wonder why these cars with the same issues are not part of this law suit.
Since we live in a remote area of Alaska, I took our 2012 Forester in to an import repair shop known for dealing with Subarus, instead of the dealership. We reported engine ticking and noises, no lights coming on, but “using oil.” The shop advised me to take the vehicle in to Subaru dealership for the Oil Consumption test, They found no leaks, just did an oil change. Unfortunately, by the time I got wind of this oil consumption issue–it was too late. A short one and a half week later–before we could get into the dealership’s shop 65-miles away–our engine blew. No warning, no indication of a problem, just sounded like rocks rattling around in the engine. and unable to drive.
We have AAA towing, so we had it towed to the dealership the next morning. I went in with the tow truck, and was advised that yes, my VIN number fell within that of vehicles impacted by the defective piston rings, exhibiting oil consumption. I left, as it was Saturday, with a ride of my own, but later that next week the Subaru dealership provided me with a loaner vehicle while they “looked” at my vehicle.
After 2 weeks, a service rep called and asked that I provide oil change receipts for them so they could move forward with “processing” my claim. I asked if they needed the most recent, or if they had to go “in order” and the rep said, “just 3 receipts.” I could not get in touch with the last repair shop that I had had the vehicle at because they were already closed…so I just asked an oil change place where I had previously taken the vehicle, got 3 receipts from them, and sent them to the rep. In my e-mail, I asked if there were any other items needed…especially since the last receipt from the repair shop would explain the current situation with the car. I indicated that I would be happy to get that one, as well, if needed. No reply. Then, I thought better of it, and called to speak with her in person. I was told she could not come to the phone, so one of her associates conveyed my question to her, and she responded, “yes, I should send that repair shop receipt as well.”
So, I did. Another week passed. I emailed, inquiring when I could expect my vehicle back, as it had snowed, and I did not want to be facing winter without studded snow tires on my car. No response. So, I called, and when I finally get in touch with this service rep, she informed me that my claim to have my engine repair covered was denied. She cited the dates on the oil change receipts (without any apparent regard for the repair receipt mentioning the oil consumption issue), and cited the District Manager as the source of this decision. She also seemed fixated on the fact that none of my oil changes had been done at the dealership, also noting that 7 months had passed between changes instead of recommended 8. (My bad, apparently, I am sure that is a justifiable reason to expect a 4-year-old vehicle to blow an engine). Here’s the thing: that makes no difference.
When I protested, she informed me that they were an independent dealership and then referred me to Subaru of America, Inc. I called and spoke with a representative there, was told that she would get the paperwork from the dealership and look into the situation for me. She, did indeed return my call before the end of the week, with the news that “our vehicle was no longer under warranty.” Even though I was originally informed that my VIN number indicated that our vehicle did, indeed fall within the group of autos impacted by this defect. The SOA representative told me when questioned why I was being treated as if my vehicle was not subject to the extended warranty, she said it was determined that my car’s engine did not blow as a result of oil consumption, therefore it was not granted coverage under the extended warranty.
I asked her what forensic evidence the technician uncovered to reach this conclusion–when I never had a chance to get my car in for the recommended oil consumption test BEFORE the engine blew, and all she could offer was that there was “oil in the engine.” Well, of course there was, the oil had just been changed.
There were also NO LIGHTS coming on (no oil or check engine) until right AS the engine failed.
I requested SPECIFIC information for what was determined by this inspection that supposedly indicates that my vehicle’s engine failed for some other reason besides oil consumption caused by faulty pistons…..
So, I am currently waiting to hear back. I don’t expect anything, really, more than more runaround, but you would think that a 2012 vehicle’s engine would be expected to last more than 80,000 miles. We have had Subarus over the past decades with over 200, 000 miles on them–same engine (lots of CV joints, but good engines). That is why we went with this used Forester when purchasing.
Also, it would seem to me that a company, any company, that had just gotten through settling a class action law suit, mostly for denying rightful claims, would be a little more sincere in offering extended coverage to the customers with the faulty product. Just sayin’…. looks like they are taking care of the plaintiffs, and the rest of us unfortunate souls who own their faulty products can take a flying leap.
Oh, BTW, I use the term “own” here loosely. We still owe $8,200 on this vehicle. Bought it used a couple of years ago from a dealership who had acquired it from a rental car buy out. Until this time, was perfectly happy with it. So, on top of student loans, we are now saddled with debt of a defective vehicle we cannot use, and can’t afford to come up with money to buy a new engine on our own at this time. Even if I could, I would damn sure not take it to the Subaru Dealership to replace….
Thanks for letting me vent. Any suggestions are welcome.
Please let me know if there is an open lawsuit
We bought a 2011 Outback, 5 quarts of oil gone in 2,000 miles
Engine seized, no low oil sensor in 2011 WTF!
$6,000 for used engine. Dealership, Young’s Auto , Laconia NH take NO responsibilty
UPDATE 2: On Apr. 12, 2016, the Subaru oil burning settlement is now open! Click here to file a Claim Form or visit http://www.OilConsumption.SettlementClass.com for details.
My 2015 Subaru Forester with a manual transmission was using 1 qt of oil every 1200 miles. It only has 7000 miles on it.The dealer just put a new short block in it. If you are having troubles, you need to go to the dealer and request an oil consumption test. I am wondering if my warranty will be extended to 8 years.
2008 Subaru Outback 2.5i. I had not heard anything about the head gaskets or pistons or oil consumption, but I always maintained it and I think there was a head gasket recall early on. Nevertheless, 2015 out of warranty, 6 months after having a head gaskets repair, I never liked the way it sounded, got other opinions, looked at engine, then engine blew early in January 2016 . Called Subaru (I live in New Jersey) and then was given the shortest shrift ever gotten from a retailer that had 30,000 of my money. I had to replace engine. Car was worth zero although meticulously and expensively maintained. I now owe 8,000 on it so I cant really sell it. Recalled air bags not available to replace, and now a melting dashboard recall!!! Next time I will buy a Chevy.
Just blew the engine on a 2007 forester due to lack of oil…no warning, no light, recent oil change. Damn.
2014 Subaru forester 2.5 Burns1/2 to 3/4 qrt every 2500miles engine miles 27000ytd.subaru recommends oil change set every 7500
I also have the same problem I own a 2007 Subaru outback. Keep me posted.
Our 2013 Forester is having the issue. At 25000 miles it should be a rock solid car. It is not mistreated and has regular maintenance. I would also like info on becoming part of this lawsuit. I am disgusted and will probably sell the car, but want to provide the buyer some sort of security. Sure our dog likes the car, but he likes any car that allows him to go for a ride. Thanks.
I am in the same boat as you. If you ever hear of anything we can do on our end to get involved in this suit, please let me know.