Suzuki Hits Back In Electric Lighting Defect Class Action

On Feb. 3, a motion to dismiss an electric lighting defect class action lawsuit was filed in Oklahoma federal court by Suzuki Motor of America Inc., stating the carmaker was not liable for the actions of its predecessor, the now dissolved General Motors LLC and its various units, who manufactured the allegedly defective Suzuki Forenza and Reno vehicles.

According to the Suzuki class action lawsuit, the automaker argues that per the terms of the 2013 GM asset purchase agreement, Suzuki did not agree to take on the liabilities of the now dissolved GM unit American Suzuki Motor Corp. In its motion to dismiss the electric lighting defect class action lawsuit, Suzuki points to this agreement approved by bankruptcy court to support their argument that the lead plaintiff cannot bring multimillion dollar class action claims against Suzuki Motor of America for defects in vehicles manufactured and sold by its predecessor.

In the motion to dismiss the electric lighting class action lawsuit, Suzuki argues:

“Suzuki Motor assumed a narrow and well-defined subset of American Suzuki’s warranty obligations, but the assumed obligations do not include the broad, open-ended product liability that plaintiff alleges. Any American Suzuki liability that was not assumed would remain with American Suzuki, an entity dissolved pursuant to the bankruptcy proceeding and not a party to this lawsuit.”

The Suzuki electric lighting defect class action lawsuit was originally filed by plaintiff Jason Dinwiddie in October 2014, alleging the auto company intentionally concealed an electric lighting defect in their Forenza and Reno models that can to cause daytime running lights to overheat and even catch on fire.

Dinwiddie claims that the automaker was aware of the electric lighting defect since April 2007 but did not issue a Suzuki vehicle recall for the more than 184,000 affected 2007 and 2008 Forenza and 2005 and 2008 Reno model vehicles until about July of last year.

Suzuki countered the plaintiff’s claim by stating it does not matter whether or not Suzuki’s predecessor knew about the alleged electric lighting defect. However, Suzuki did inherit recall responsibilities, which is why the Suzuki recall was issued as soon as the company discovered potential electric lighting issues in 2014 in a joint effort with the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA).

According to the Suzuki class action lawsuit, “If Suzuki Motor is negligent in the conduct of the recall, it is the federal government that is empowered to take action — not private consumers.” Because of this clause in the asset purchase agreement, the plaintiff’s allegation of negligence regarding the voluntary recall has the potential to demonstrate Suzuki’s liability in court, although in that case Suzuki would only be liable to the government, not the plaintiff or potential Class Members.

Dinwiddie seeks to represent himself and a nationwide Class of all owners and lessees of “motor vehicles (2004-2008 Suzuki Forenzas and 2005-2008 Suzuki Renos) which are the subject of the July 22, 2014 Recall Notice,” according to the electric lighting class action lawsuit.

The plaintiff is represented by Blake Sonne of Sonne Law Firm PLC.

The Suzuki Electric Lighting Defect Class Action Lawsuit is Dinwiddie, et al v. Suzuki Motor of America Inc., Case No. 5:14-cv-01127, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma.