A Wisconsin judge has dismissed a class action lawsuit filed against General Motors over claims that its 5.3L LC9 V8 engine consumes excessive amounts of oil and experiences other problems that can eventually lead to total engine failure.
Plaintiffs in this class action suit, which is one in a number of separate lawsuits filed against GM over oil consumption problems in certain versions of its 5.3L V8, claimed their vehicles consume too much oil, causing the engine to knock and eventually fail. This problem can allegedly be traced back to the piston rings, which can wear prematurely and fail to keep oil in the crankcase. The plaintiffs also say GM breached its warranty conditions, although they never sought warranty repairs for their vehicles, and knowingly sold vehicles with defective engines. The lawsuit involved three separate plaintiffs, one of which owns a 2012 Chevy Avalanche and two others that owned 2011 GMC Sierras.
The judge presiding over the case, Judge Lynn Adelman, dismissed the case this week, as first reported by Car Complaints. In his ruling, Adelman said the plaintiffs never provided GM with notice that it had allegedly broken its warranty conditions, which is required by Wisconsin law in order to sue a company for breach of implied warranty. Plaintiffs also never approached GM about remedying the issue during the vehicle’s warranty period.
“The purpose of giving such notice is to eliminate an element of unfair surprise where a seller has not been informed that a situation is troublesome and, therefore, cannot take steps to correct it but only later has a lawsuit filed against him,” Adelman said in the ruling.
Additionally, GM successfully argued that its express warranty only applies to defects in materials and workmanship. The oil consumption issue in the 5.3L LC9 V8 engines, which was been widely documented, is related to a design defect, so it’s not covered by warranty.
Last year, a judge in Ohio tossed out a similar lawsuit filed against GM over oil consumption problems in its 5.3L V8 engines. Similarly, that suit was thrown out in part because GM’s warranty does not cover design defects like the one that affects these engines.