A lawsuit filed against GM that was previously dismissed has been sent back to a district court in Missouri after appeal.
The class action lawsuit alleges that several GM trucks and SUVs spanning the 2010 through 2014 model years consume excessive amounts of engine oil as the result of engine defects. The GM models in question include:
- 2010 through 2014 Chevrolet Avalanche
- 2010 through 2014 Chevrolet Silverado
- 2010 through 2014 Chevrolet Suburban
- 2010 through 2014 Chevrolet Tahoe
- 2010 through 2014 GMC Sierra
- 2010 through 2014 GMC Yukon
- 2010 through 2014 GMC Yukon XL
Plaintiffs listed in the lawsuit purchased two new GM pickup trucks, including a new GMC Sierra in 2013, and a new Chevy Silverado in 2012. The plaintiffs claim that while they did see advertising for the pickups, GM failed to warn customers about allegedly excessive oil consumption.
The lawsuit goes on to claim that the Generation IV 5.3L Vortec V8 engines equipped by these vehicles exhibited piston ring failure, leading to the excessive oil consumption condition. The plaintiffs listed in the lawsuit noticed that their pickups were consuming excessive oil some time after purchasing the vehicles, with the GMC Sierra owner noticing the excessive oil consumption at 75,000 miles, and the Chevy Silverado owner noticing the excessive oil consumption at 25,000 miles.
The lawsuit alleges that affected engines can overheat and fail, and that GM knew about this condition since 2008.
A district court judge dismissed all claims against GM in this lawsuit in 2021. However, according to a recent report from Car Complaints, the lawsuit was subsequently appealed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, reversing a dismissal on the claim that GM violated the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (MMPA).
The original ruling stated that advertising constituted “mere puffery” and could not form the basis of an MMPA claim. However, according to the Car Complaints report, the appeals court found that advertising “puffery” does not affect an MMPA claim based on omission of a material fact in this case. As such, the oil consumption class action “alleg[es] sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state [an omissions] claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”
The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, with plaintiffs represented by DiCello Levitt Gutzler LLC, and Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis and Miles, P.C.