Honda CR-V Structural Defect Concerns Prompt Class Action Lawsuit

Honda is under fire this month after a customer filed a class action lawsuit against the company alleging that a structural defect led to a spontaneous break in the windshield on a Honda CR-V.

The plaintiff, Hakeem Hasan, filed the lawsuit on October 25 in the Illinois district court making claims that the Honda warranty administrator had acknowledged that the crack was due to a structural defect and not external impact and Honda subsequently allegedly refused to repair the windshield.

Furthermore, the plaintiff alleges that he is not the only customer who has experienced a structural defect in his Honda CR-V windshield. The court document contained several online complaints from owners of 2017-2019 Honda CR-V new cars with less than 36,000 miles on them.

The plaintiff’s arguments continued to discuss the severe safety issues and extensive costs involved with the structural defect.

The 2018 model of the Honda CR-V that Hasan purchased contains a feature called the Honda Sensing System, which the plaintiff claims the dealer advertised as a “suite of features that can assist and help you sense things you might miss while driving.” The system uses two types of sensors which, as detailed in the Honda instructions manual by the plaintiff, can “operate abnormally” if scratches, nicks or other damage is present on the windshield.

“In addition to these obvious safety hazards, the cost to repair the effects of the Windshield Defect can be exorbitant, requiring consumers to pay significant sums over the life of their CR-Vs,” states the plaintiff in the court document.

Other complaints contained in the plaintiff’s argument is that the dealer, allegedly knowing of the defects, continues to sell these cars with no warning to customers before they purchase them, and no warning to customers who already own the Honda CR-V from model 2017-2019.

The plaintiff is seeking relief on the grounds of breach of written and implied warranty under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act.

Requesting a trial by jury, the plaintiff seeks repair for damages in the form of an award of actual and compensatory damages and punitive damages, and an Order enjoining the defendant from continuing to sell vehicles containing the defect.
The defendant had not yet responded to the court summon which was issued on October 28.

This entry was posted in glassBYTEs Original Story and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *