– A GM 2.4L PCV lawsuit alleges that the positive crankcase ventilation systems are defective and cause the vehicles to lose oil and power.
General Motors’ lawsuit says the PCV system contains an orifice that becomes blocked by snow and ice in cold weather.
Additionally, mud and water clog the PCV system and cause the rear main engine seal to break as pressure builds in the crankcase.
Plaintiffs also claim that cold weather PCV system problems can cause permanent engine damage.
GM PCV demand includes these models.
-
Buick Lacrosse 2010-2016 (including hybrid, eAssist)
-
Buick Regal 2011-2017
-
Buick Summer 2012-2017
-
Chevrolet Captiva 2010-2015
-
Chevrolet Equinox 2010-2017
-
Chevrolet Malibu 2013-2014 (including ECO, eAssist, hybrid)
-
GMC Terrain 2010-2017
According to PCV’s lawsuit, General Motors knew the systems were defective because the automaker sent service bulletins to dealers about what to do if customers complained.
The plaintiffs claim that the TSBs show that GM knew the PCV systems were defective, especially in cold weather.
General Motors PCV TSB
A February 2013 TSB PIP5093 referred to complaints of an “oil leak”. . .coming from the rear main engine oil seal” on certain vehicles which “can be the result of a frozen PCV system and excessive crankcase pressure.
The technicians were told to clean the GM PCV system and “the customer can . . . Consider changing the engine oil just before winter sets in.”
A January 2014 bulletin replaced PIP5093 and expanded the vehicles affected. The TSB said customers should change the oil before winter and advised technicians to clean out the PCV system with a 1/16-inch bit.
In January 2016 and 2019, TSB PIP5093 was updated again, and a February 2019 update referred to a “diagnostic tip”, continuing to recommend using a drill to clean the PCV orifice.
GM PCV’s suit was partially dismissed
General Motors filed a motion to dismiss PCV’s lawsuit, arguing that the plaintiffs live in only six states and that they allegedly cannot bring claims on behalf of a nationwide class action.
However, Judge Mark A. Goldsmith said he would not address the nationwide class action argument at this stage of the lawsuit.
But the judge ruled on several claims in GM PCV’s lawsuit, including those claims that were dismissed.
The judge granted GM’s motion to dismiss:
-
Common Law Fraudulent Concealment Claims Brought Under Wisconsin, Michigan and Massachusetts Laws.
-
Claims brought under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Trade Practices Act.
-
Claims brought under the Minnesota Deceptive Trade Practices Act.
-
Claims brought under the Wisconsin Deceptive Trade Practices Act, to the extent such claims are based on omissions.
-
All implied warranty claims, including Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act claims; and breach of contract claims based on contracts with non-GM authorized dealers.
However, the judge allowed the following claims to survive.
-
Claims Brought Under New York and Minnesota Fraudulent Concealment Theories.
-
Claims brought under Sections 349 and 350 of the New York General Business Law.
-
Claims brought under the Wisconsin Deceptive Trade Practices Act, to the extent such claims are not based on omissions.
-
Claims for breach of contract based on contracts with GM dealers.
-
Claims of unjust enrichment.
Much will depend on when and how the judge rules on a national class action lawsuit.
GM PCV’s lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan: Kiriacopoulos, et al., v. General Motors LLC.
The plaintiffs are represented by Miller Law Firm, PC and Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.
