SonnyakaPig

It's still ongoing.

Defendants filed motions to dismiss and a motion to strike in April, 2012. The court considered the motions and in light of a recent Third Circuit (US Court of Appeals) opinion, the court, on August 14, 2012 ordered the plaintiffs to submit supplemental briefing as to why the Court should not strike the class allegations in accordance with the Third Circuit’s recent and precedential Opinion. The court further ordered the defendants may file a reply to plaintiff's supplemental briefs. The supplemental briefs and any reply briefs are due later this month (September, 2012).

At issue is whether the plaintiff's amended complaint is too broad because it is written to include all owners/lessees of 2007-2011 models equipped with M156 engines and not limited to owners who's vehicles have experienced an alleged defect. The plaintiff's acknowledge that many such owners' vehicles have never experienced the defect [or more specifically effects of the alleged defect].

The Third Circuits precedential opinion holds that lead plaintiff's in a class action must show that a common class-wide defect caused the class members damages. At issue before the Third Circuit was a class action where it was alleged that vehicles' tires would go flat and need replacement. The Third Circuit held that it was abuse of discretion for the district court to find that a lead plaintiff in a class action could show that a common class-wide defect caused the class members damages without individual proofs. The Third Circuit noted the importance of causation. They mentioned that any tire can go flat for reasons unrelated to design defects in the tires.

But, because plaintiff's allege that the defects in the engine are in the design and manufacture of the parts, the design defect covers all parts manufactured according to the design. Plaintiff's further contend they must be given an opportunity to prove the alleged defects in the complaint.

The presiding district court appears to have ordered the plaintiffs to file supplemental briefs as to why the court should not strike the class allegations in light of the Third Circuits precedential opinion.

This case (Chan v. MB) is very interesting because the damage to the M156 engines that plaintiff alleges is caused by the design defects would seem more specific than the facts involving tires going flat and needing replacement in the case that was the subject of the Third Circuit's opinion.

BerBer63

Sonny should represent us in the head bolt failure. Next class action lawsuit.

SonnyakaPig

Thanks for the props. Based on the amount of pleadings and pre-tiral motions in the current class action, MB sure puts up a good fight. Lots of work from both sides. I'm sure we're all interested to see what we find out next.

220S

Daimler AG has bottomless pockets for this sort of litigation compared to the plaintiff law firm. The only thing that motivates the plaintiff lawyers is winning the case for their amount out of the awarded common fund (usually 25-35%.) That's their paycheck. Always a gamble on their side but sometimes it pays off nicely. Depending on the number of claimants, the consumer usually ends up with not very much at all. Then down the road, Daimler AG will raise prices on products to make up for any loss they may have incurred in the suit.

SonnyakaPig

If a manufacturer is made responsible for their defective designs, it gives them incentive to make better products. That's good for consumers. Just stating the other side of the coin.

220S

I have no problem at all with that. Manufacturers should definitely be made responsible for defective designs, and especially when it comes to a consumer's health and potential for injury.

But there should be more oversight of corporations and instigated as legislation, not just left to private law firms whose primary motivation is profit and not the welfare of the consumer. The FTC is primarily concerned about deceptive practices but has been reduced in its authority by anti-consumer legislation. Perhaps the NHTSA, which also has been crippled in its role as a safety overseer, should also be investigating defective automobile design and not just in the context of safety only (e.g., compared to UNECE of which the US is not a member.)

Unfortunately conservative lawmakers want to end and/or limit litigation against all corporations and dismantle existing consumer protection laws. This will send a message to companies like Daimler AG that they really don't need to worry about any responsibility for their products aside from market demand dictating sales revenue (i.e., if a company continually makes faulty products, then sales will be affected.)

DuaneC63

The head bolt are torque to yield. They are torqued to a specification then turned a specific number of degrees to obtain the require yield torque. They are only designed to be used once as they are designed to stretch.

jnsn78

Hi,
My 2008 C63 is 62.000 Km old, and the engine number is 56985 60 028955.
After reading here, it seems to be concerned about the problem...
My car is under Mercedes warranty until 31 December 2012, you advice me to do what?
(I'm in France)
Thanks

CoolBDPhenom03

Buy an extended warranty.

jnsn78

Yes, it was my first idea, I tryed to buy an extension warranty with MB, but it's impossible by MB. The C63 was sold with one year warranty, and it is finished at the term of it (end of december). Other MB vendors told me that they can't sell me an extension.
May be it is possible to find other Assurance company which propose such service, I don't stil find

Even Money

You either get the new head bolts, get an extended warranty, or get another car. That's all there is to it. Expecting anything else will be a waste of time.

jnsn78

Thanks guys
Get another car, absolutly NO ! I will change the bolts
PS: Is anyone here has an internal MB note or something like that concerning this head bolts malfunction?

CoolBDPhenom03

Yes, but it's not public info. You need a dealership to look it up for you and they refuse to do anything preventative.

jnsn78

Sorry, could you help me and explain me "CEL"

CoolBDPhenom03

Check Engine Light

jnsn78

Thanks

Paculdo

not sure how it goes there in France.. maybe you can check with several other dealership to get an extended warranty? i mean, the car is currently under warranty so they should be able to extend yours right? look around, or get a 3rd party warranty and make sure they will cover this issue if ever this comes up.. good luck.

DuaneC63

With the engine cold, drain the plastic coolant reserviour tank. Turn on engine to get low coolant light. Refill plastic coolant reserviour half way. Take to dealer and tell them you're getting a low coolant light and you refilled the reserviour. They will keep your car for the night, and tell you they found nothing wrong. Keep repeating this on a weekly basis until the dealer gives up and just does the head bolt retrofit in accordance with the service bulletin.

morganb

A hopefully second last update on my car. Will let you all know details of the moter rebuild sheet when I get it. A small issue before I got the car back was a broken engine mount. This was replaced before I got the car back.

I got the car back on Friday. First Cold Start this AM
All seems to work well but currently running in phase so hard to tell performance wise. Thanks to MB for covering the majority of the rebuild cost. My cost came in under what I offered (5K) and I ended up with new plugs (which were due), a service completed and 12 months warranty on an almost fully rebuilt engine. Its wrong to say I am happy (as my car had this issue) but so far satisfied with the way it was handled other than the timing (22 weeks) to get the car back.

Thanks to all those who commented and supported through this. Happy Motoring!

bhamg

Great to hear morganb! This was an interesting case...yours being the first off-warranty case I've heard of. Enjoy the ride!

CoolBDPhenom03

I'm glad it was repaired and better yet, lower than your estimated out-of-pocket cost. How many miles do you have now?

Paculdo

given that morganb's case is outside of US, can this (still) be used as precedence for future complaints/cases/disputes with MB/dealers?

morganb

I am at 53,000 KMs at the moment.

Paculdo

glad that you were taken cared of by MB/dealer @morganb.. enjoy the (new) engine/car ;-)

C63sydney

That's great news! Can you PM me the price?

Seeing that they charged you under what you first offered seems very strange and sparks the question that if the design fault of the head bolts was Merc's problem then why are the charging you at all?

I understand the vehicle is out of warranty but if they put their hand up and warranted the repair and you came in and put in as a sign of good will then why would they reduce your offer even further?