GMC Yukon Taillight Lawsuit Set To Be Dismissed
14
Sponsored Links
A lawsuit filed against General Motors alleging certain examples of the GMC Yukon full-size SUV were shipped with faulty taillights looks set to be dismissed by the judge presiding over the case.
According to Car Complaints, GM has found the plaintiff who originally filed this class action lawsuit does not legally own a GMC Yukon, which alone is grounds for the suit to be thrown out.
In its motion to dismiss the suit, GM says the plaintiff, Rhonda Small, never actually “purchased, leased, or owned any of the vehicles in her class definition.” Instead, the 2017 GMC Yukon XL referenced by Small in her lawsuit was purchased and is still owned by an unnamed corporate entity. From a legal standpoint, this means she lacks the standing to assert claims on behalf of a class of vehicle owners of which she is not a part of.
Vehicles named in the original filing include the 2017-2019 GMC Yukon and Yukon XL, as well as the range-topping Denali variants of both vehicles. The plaintiff claimed their GMC Yukon was shipped with faulty LED light strips that may cause the brake and/or taillights to fail. They also said the lights may have a faulty connection inside the light assembly or a defective circuit board, which can lead to similar issues with the brake lights and taillights.
GM indeed issued a Technical Service Bulletin (TSB) in November of 2019 for certain 2015-2016 model year GMC Yukon SUVs to address a problem with these vehicles’ taillights. The TSB, entitled “Tail Lamps Inoperative,” indicated the stop and tail functions inside the taillamps may experience various issues and instructed dealers “to replace tail lamps if they are found to be inoperative.” The class action lawsuit said later model year GMC Yukon vehicles should have been included in this TSB, which only involved 2015 and 2016 model year vehicles.
While the fact the plaintiff does not legally own a 2017-2019 GMC Yukon is enough to have the case dismissed, GM’s attorneys always pointed out that the TSB was later extended to include 2017 model year vehicles, making this part of Small’s claims “plainly false.” The corporate entity that owns the plaintiff’s GMC Yukon was also notified of this service bulletin, the automaker said.
GM also found other holes in her case. For example, her claims that GM breached the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act claim failed, as it does not meet the 100-named plaintiff minimum requirements for class action suits, according to Car Complaints.
We’ll provide an update on this class-action proceeding and if it will be dismissed once available.
Subscribe to GM Authority for more GMC Yukon news, GMC news, GM-related legal news and around-the-clock General Motors news coverage.
Sponsored Links
I’m assuming it’s her corporation that “owns” the vehicle. I’m not a legal expert, but would the case have standing if the corporation sued instead of the woman?
no, case said the corporation was made aware of the TSB.
I owned a 2015 Denali. GM needs to man up on this issues regarding Tail lights faulty. I experienced this same issues still nowadays. Hopefully, GM will just replace or at least have us returned the tail lights for free repair when it does go out??? This tail lights cost an arms and a legs.
Left side is 84721530
Right side is 84721531
They’re $201.76 with a $50 core. They used to be almost $700.
Sounds like a really good lawyer from Dewey, Cheatham and How,
Just as well as the odds of her getting the lights fixed we’re slim anyways. She may have gotten a free oil change in comp while the lawyers get millions.
One you would think the lawyer would have established the true owner. Two does she realizes her company would pay for the repair since they own it?
GM usually wins these cases like they did on the Cadillacs.
Looks to me like a law firm looking for publicity or a quick settlement. How pathetic.
I had to replace one taillight and was able to repair the other on my 2015 Yukon Denali. Worst piece of junk ever. I have a list as long as my arm on this stupid vehicle. I used to be a big GM guy, no more. I won’t buy another new GM vehicle again. I used to work for GM in Final Assembly and there is no excuse for the garbage engineering on this vehicle. So many engineering errors that were blatant. I should have lemon law’d the stupid thing. If I weren’t a mechanic and a programmer I would be screwed. I just wish I could get my hands on detailed circuit drawings so I could fix all the sensor issues. Transmission programming was so bad I found the problems inside of a minute. GMC Engineers should be ashamed of yourselves. Trim pieces flying off down the freeway, engine cutting out on the 1-2 shift, improper wiring in the driver door harness, collision detector going off when passing under over passes I could go on for days. Your colleges should ask for your diplomas back. So you won this round, a couple more vehicles like this and people will get smart and buy JEEP Grand Waggoneer’s. You can only build crap so long, the word gets out.
Jeeps are worse -I have a few friends that own them and they are sorry–PURE JUNK
You want to know why vehicles cost so much, needing an army of lawyers to defend off the vultures looking for easy money.
It was cheaper for me to purchase the Escalade tail lights as a replacement as opposed to buying 1 replacement tail light.
That is a handsome truck. I even like the wheels and that’s saying something. GMC is killing it.
GM is not generating any good will with this action, getting out of fixing the taillights, on a technicality. I own a 2016 GMC Yukon XL Denali. So far so good, but my next truck is the Cybertruck; period.
Where do I find this information:
“GM’s attorneys always pointed out that the TSB was later extended to include 2017 model year vehicles,”
I have called GMC Customer service and they say there is no such extension.