Toyota class action alleges RAV4s have potential power liftgate defect

Update:

• On Jan. 10, 20205, Judge Edward M. Chen signed an order dismissing the Toyota power liftgate class action lawsuit.
• The plaintiffs settled their individual claims against the defendants, according to class counsel Sauder Schelkopf.
• Judge Chen dismissed the putative claims without prejudice, meaning the individuals can refile claims against defendants if they wish. However, a statute of limitations may apply, Sauder Schelkopf says.

Toyota power liftgate class action lawsuit overview: 

• Who: Plaintiff Zach Hughes filed a class action lawsuit against Toyota Motor Sales USA Inc. 
• Why: Hughes claims Toyota failed to disclose an alleged defect in power liftgates on its model year 2014-2021 RAV4s. 
• Where: The Toyota power liftgate class action lawsuit was filed in California federal court. 

A new Toyota class action lawsuit alleges the automaker failed to disclose that its model year 2014-2021 Toyota RAV4s have a defective power liftgate.

Plaintiff Zach Hughes’ class action lawsuit claims the power liftgates in the vehicles have poorly designed and/or manufactured hinges that can cause the liftgates to prematurely fail.

Hughes says Toyota is aware of the alleged defect, has actively concealed material facts regarding the defect from consumers and has been unable or unwilling to repair the class vehicles. 

“Knowledge and information regarding the Defect were in the exclusive and superior possession of Defendants and its dealers, and this information was not disclosed to Plaintiff and members of the Class at the time of purchase, or otherwise,” the Toyota class action states. 

Hughes wants to represent a nationwide class of consumers who purchased or leased a model year 2014-2021 Toyota RAV4 and a subclass of California consumers who are current or former owners and/or lessees of the class vehicle. 

Toyota has long known about power liftgate defect, class action says

Hughes argues Toyota has long been aware of the alleged power liftgate defect due to pre-production and pre-sale testing, failure mode analyses, bench testing, warranty and post-warranty claims and consumer complaints via forums and through its dealers. 

The class action lawsuit claims further that Toyota “refused” to take action to correct the defect in the event it manifested outside of the vehicles’ warranty period. 

“Because the Defect can manifest shortly outside of the warranty period for the Class Vehicles — and given Defendants’ knowledge of the Defect — Defendants’ attempt to limit the warranty is unconscionable and unenforceable,” the Toyota class action says. 

Hughes claims Toyota is guilty of unjust enrichment, fraudulent concealment, breach of express warranty and breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, and of violating the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and California’s Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, Unfair Competition Law and Consumers Legal Remedies Act. 

The plaintiff is demanding a jury trial and requesting injunctive relief along with an award of punitive damages for himself and all class members. 

Toyota recalled more than 1.8 million of its model year 2013-2018 RAV4 vehicles in November over concerns an issue with certain replacement 12-volt batteries could present a fire hazard. 

Have you had problems with the Toyota power liftgate in your RAV4? Let us know in the comments.

The plaintiff is represented by Alison M. Bernal of Nye, Stirling, Hale, Miller & Sweet LLP and Matthew D. Schelkopf and Joseph B. Kenney of Sauder Schelkopf. 

The Toyota RAV4s power liftgate class action lawsuit is Hughes v. Toyota Motor Sales USA Inc., et al., Case No. 5:24-cv-00912, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Read About More Class Action Lawsuits & Class Action Settlements:

• GM issues truck recall due to potential tailgate unlatching issue
• Recall issued for Honda, Acura vehicles due to potential air bag defect
• Hyundai, Kia can ask court to consider whether cities can sue over car thefts
• Jury says Chrysler doesn’t need to pay damages in defective headrest trial