Subaru of America (SOA) made another response to claims previously filed in the Lucia Luong and Brian Mann class action lawsuit against the corporation concerning spontaneous breakage. Previously the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California decided not to dismiss the June 1, 2017 class action lawsuit.
Subaru’s previous motion was denied May 2, 2018.
Later that month, SOA answered the plaintiff’s claims, asking the court to dismiss the first amended complaint. In its response SOA noted several of the plaintiffs’ claims that centered on:
– Plaintiff’s not being made aware of the possible windshield defect;
– SOA manufacturing and selling directly to the public;
– Any affected windshields causing cuts or other injuries;
– Breach of implied warranty; and
– Breach of express warranty.
The corporation says it issued both a technical service bulletin and an owner notification letter after it learned about potential issues of windshields cracking in a small section of some of its 2015 and 2016 models. Therefore, the corporation believes it fulfilled its obligation to inform customers with those specific models.
In SOA’s response, it denies Luong’s claim of not being notified of an issue involving her windshield and potential cracking.
“SOA denies Ms. Luong did not receive notice, and affirmatively states it provided notice to Ms. Luong. …SOA affirmatively states it provided notice to all potentially affected vehicle owners at the addresses at which their vehicles are registered with their respective states’ department of motor vehicles”.
In addition to the leaflets, SOA stated that any customer who experiences any issues with his or her windshield can submit a claim or provide comments directly on the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s website. SOA also said that further damage may have been caused by the driver’s conduct behind the wheel. He or she may have been driving at higher speeds, using poor driving habits or using aftermarket accessories in their vehicle.
“SOA admits that it sells and delivers the subject vehicles to authorized, independent Subaru retailers who independently market, sell and lease the subject vehicles to consumers. SOA denies it designs or manufactures vehicles, and further denies it sells or leases vehicles directly to the public,” said in Subaru’s response.
In regard to the possible defect causing cuts, harm or other injuries, SOA maintains its defense in not being held accountable. “…Expressly denied that any affected windshields spontaneously shattered, cracked, or resulted in dislodged glass that caused cuts, eye damage or other injuries…the asserted claims are barred in whole or in part, to the extent that there is no legal injury, including no persons who purchased or leased the vehicles in question and experienced no problems.”
In relation to both the breach of implied and express warranty, SOA says it’s certain that it should not be responsible. In relation to Mann’s Subaru, SOA identifies it as being outside of the vehicle identification number range of vehicles potentially affected.
SOA’s response was filed on May 16, 2018 for U.S. District Court Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers to consider. SOA believes it has met its burden of proof.
