The owner of a 2006 Ford F-350 has supported Ford Motor Co for years. which sold Super Duty pickup trucks with defective 6. 0L diesel engines to thousands of unsuspecting buyers, then hid known issues, charged consumers with repair costs, and exposed them to the failed engine.
Now an appeal has reached an agreement with Charles Brian Margeson, 41, from Torrance, California.
He is the first owner of a Super Duty van with a 6. 0L diesel engine that has a fraud claim opposed to Ford filed on appeal. Ford in some cases is being appealed.
“I bought my new truck. It will have to have broken down a few dozen times and the turbo even exploded,” Margeson told Free Press. “I started dressing up with spare pipes and leather gloves because everything was so hot and I had to fix it myself in the way of the roads. We’d lose power. I told Ford a couple of times saying, it’s a lemon. They just laughed. I just looked for a van that worked. “
iPhone 12: Apple introduces smartphone models at $699 and a HomePod Mini speaker
Social Security: cost of building life up to the accumulation of profits up to 1. 3% in 2021
He made the decision to withdraw from an action of elegance involving unfortunate Super Duty owners who nevertheless settled in 2013.
Only Margeson filed a lawsuit in June 2014 and won a total of $940,177. 74 in June 2017, however, the Court of Appeals found that an expert’s testimony of punitive damages was not on the case and rejected that part of his sentence, about $726,000. , in an unscheduled trial, will determine how much Ford will have to pay him for punitive damages, which by definition are intended to punish the accused.
A more sensible legal expert in the United States told Free Press that Margeson’s victory is a harsh example of how collective action can be used to avoid billions of dollars in prices when things happen to consumers, in this case for Ford.
“Society has dodged a bullet,” said Brian Fitzpatrick, a law professor at Vanderbilt University, who commissioned U. S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.
In Margeson’s case, the California Court of Appeals upheld on September 22 the verdict of the Los Angeles County Superior Court jury that found that Ford had acted with malice, oppression, or fraud by intentionally concealing known flaws. of its Power Stroke diesel engine. The engine manufactured through Navistar and used mainly in Super Duty trucks for the 2003-2007 style years.
Margeson, a technician who maintains the Edison force grid in Southern California, used Ford’s internal documents to prove in court that Dearborn’s automaker knew his diesel engines were in bad shape and still put them in heavy trucks for years.
The owners reported problems, adding engine power loss, a grilled chamber joint, deformed or disfigured chamber bolts, and an oil cooler failure. Frequent cuts and lower resale prices ruled van groups.
The jury prize at Margeson included the maximum amount allowed for Ford’s violation of California lemon law, totaling $214,537. 34, plus legal fees. This amount is in dispute and will pass to Margeson.
This could have been avoided if Ford had taken his calls seriously, Margeson said. “Every time I was towing, things would break. “
Bryan Altman of Los Angeles, Margeson’s attorney, said the new jury would see how much Ford deserves to be punished financially.
“There is no roof integrated into this, ” said Altman. ” The jury will be tasked with examining how hateful and repetitive their fraudulent conduct was. They have this 6. 0 engine in over a million Ford vehicles, with sales estimates of up to $60 billion. “
A Spokesman for Ford declined to comment on the main points of the case. Ian Thibodeau told Free Press in a statement: “We are pleased that the appeals court oversteals punitive damages. Ford looks forward to the opportunity for a retrial. “
Of the about $215,000 the jury awarded Margeson under the Lemon Act, $72,564. 04 in compensatory damages that necessarily returned Margeson to his truck, which is among the most expensive on the market. at the moment. The rest a civil penalty.
For years, he and other heavy trucks reported that the engines were breaking down and emitting black smoke.
Margeson made the decision to sue, he said, after the truck cornered him on the side of a road with his wife and baby as the half-turns roared. She broke down in tears at the booth of her testimony under scrutiny.
“It was terrifying,” said Margeson, who turned down An offer from Ford for a few hundred dollars after spending thousands of dollars on repairs. “I sense that they are a company and that they care about their shareholders. But at some point, they have to worry about their customers. “
More: Ford prepares to begin the structure of the F-150 2021 as buyers place orders, without setting
In addition: Ford F-150 claims to be the best trailer and payload in its class
Read more: Ford F Series pickup trucks rank iPhone only in terms of sales. Here’s why it’s important
Ford first denied the problem, then claimed that there was insufficient evidence to resolve the claim and, in the end, argued that the company was unaware of the extent of the diesel engine problem. Internal emails written through top control have damaged Ford’s defense. .
An email filed that the trial was dated five months before Margeson bought his truck. John Koszewnik, director of Ford’s North American diesel division, wrote on February 5, 2006 that maintaining the 6. 0-liter engine warranty was running “up to $five million according to the month” and added that Ford would not invest in an engine upgrade. Two hours later, according to court records, Koszewnik warned others not to advance their email.
Mike Frommann, Ford’s head of warranty, emailed his colleagues warning that the diesel engine can lead to elegant action if their cylinder voltage specifications are public.
He wrote in an email to his colleagues dated July 13, 2006: “I am deleting all those emails. “
In February 2007, engine warranty repair prices exceeded $400 million, adding more than $227 million to repair fuel injectors and more than $182 million for turbochargers, the highest repair rate ever observed for all Ford engines. This data was taken from an affidavit through one of Ford’s own officials in a lawsuit he filed against Navistar. Despite this testimony, Ford then denied engine disruption while being sued by the Navistar engine.
The Court of Appeal held that there is “sufficient evidence that Ford deliberately conceals these disorders to the detriment of consumers. “
Purchased for non-public and advertising jobs, Super Duty pickup trucks are bigger and stronger than their successful F-150 sister. The F-250 and F-350 are advertised as capable of pulling more weight and carrying heavier loads. .
Since then, the owners of Ford Super Duty have stated that it was concluded that the Navistar engine broke down and, at the same time, the defective engine was promoted as the maximum productive in its elegance thanks to Ford with maximum power, maximum torque and other superior functions Free Press could not verify the number of cars left on the road today.
While the young father sued Ford himself, another truck chose another path.
Dozens of elegant movements related to the 6. 0 L diesel engine were consolidated and resolved in 2013 through Ford, who legalized the owners of F-250 and F-350 to claim between $50 and $825 in maintenance refunds after the warranty.
Ford agreed to pay the 16 truck homeowners who filed the elegance action on behalf of Super Duty homeowners nationwide a total of $150,000, which is separated from the aid cash provided to everyone in the group, Automotive News reported.
Compare a total of $ 150,000 for 16 plaintiffs and nearly $ 215,000 for one plaintiff, adding punitive damages.
Super Duty homeowners have been included in the action of elegance and are entitled to a limited refund unless they have retired.
Win for Ford
Super Duty’s elegance action deal was a massive victory for Ford, especially despite the court’s recent decision, Fitzpatrick of “The Conservative Case for Class Actions” said.
“This opens up the question, is it possible that both members of elegance have regained the value of their car?” he said. If they had to reimburse a member of elegance for the value of their car, it would be like the Volkswagen and Volkswagen stage paid billions of dollars. They ended up paying an elegance member the value of their car: 500,000 people.
The opposite case to Ford seems to have been much more valuable than members of Super Duty elegance knew at the time, FItzpatrick said.
“One of the virtues of the action of elegance, from the defendant’s point of view, is “global peace,” Fitzpatrick said. “You can erase anything from your balance at once. That’s why many corporations love the action of elegance. “But every one and every once in a while, someone will disconnect. So the main points weren’t similar this time. But close enough. We escaped, however, it’s okay. Society still has a lot of global peace to settle down. “
Meanwhile, the F-350 case involving Margeson is the first of six Super Duty instances targeted through Altman and Knight Law Group, laying the groundwork for Ford’s future prospects.
In addition to Margeson, five other consumers who jointly owned Super Duty trucks with 6. 0 L diesel engines earned more than $10 million from jurors. Ford looks good in all those cases.
Fitzpatrick said Ford would be sensible to reach an agreement with the remaining owners of Super Duty in court over the Navistar engine. He said the company could justify his losses and his time and cash until he completed the books.
“Dark times began in 2003,” Chris Riley wrote in an old engine review published in autowise. com in early 2018.
“Faced with stricter emission standards, Ford brought its lowest-reputed diesel engine to date, the 6. 0 L Power Stroke. “This engine was so bad that Ford and Navistar, in spite of everything, were sued,” Riley wrote. “It had sobreabundancia. de of never-before-used emission devices, such as an exhaust recirculation valve (EGR).
In January 2009, Mike Levine wrote as editor-in-chief of PickupTrucks. com: “Ford said he spent $1 billion on maintenance and recalls to solve problems with 6. 0-liter Stroke Power diesel engines. “
The loss of strength guidance and brakes assisted due to engine disruptions resonsed on jurors in many cases, not just in Margeson, Altman said. “Ford would deny the problem,” but his internal emails indicated that the company was hiding what it knew.
“They even kept repairers at Ford’s premises in the dark so it would never be shared with the public, according to testimony,” he said.
Bob Fascetti, who oversaw diesel engine products as director of V-engines and diesel engineering for Ford North America, said in an affidavit of February 28, 2007: “Ford has experienced unprecedented repair rates with 6. 0 L engines. I had the R/1000 rate. ” (arrangements consistent with thousands) never experienced by Ford for a widespread production engine. In fact, 6. 0 L, which accounts for only 10% of Ford’s total engine volume, accounts for about 80% of Ford’s total engine warranty costs. In addition, 6. 0L warranty costs account for approximately 25% of Ford’s warranty overhead. “
Jon Gabrielsen, a market analyst who has interviewed many advertising truck buyers in North America about how they rank the points that influence their purchase, said those Navistar instances may be more sensitive than informal observers think.
It’s not just the super Duty individual homeowners who have suffered financially, however, the scenario has the perspective of long-term activities led through new CEO Jim Farley.
“This is a new day in Ford with new leadership and a more ed strategy, specifically adding significant meaning in the advertising end of truck activity,” Gabrielsen said. “These F-250 and F-350 trucks are the volume leaders in Ford offering enterprise-to-business advertising vehicles. And advertising buyers are very informed about the quality, reliability, durability and overall ownership of their fleets.
“It turns out to be Ind’s most productive interest to leave blank and close this unfortunate bankruptcy of history over the most recent open demands in this domain so that they can focus only on expanding this critical segment of the project without the persistent stain of the Super Duty brand. “
In addition: Ford knew the Focus, the Fiesta models had a faulty transmission, sold them
More: U. S. Fraud Lawyers But it’s not the first time They demand Documents from Ford Focus and Fiesta
In addition: Ford will pay millions to Focus, Fiesta in streaming agreement
Contact Phoebe Wall Howard at 313-222-6512 or phoward@freepress. com. Follow her on Twitter @phoebesaid. Learn more about Ford and subscribe to our newsletter.