M156 head bolt problems
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.
Last edited by SonnyakaPig; Sep 10, 2012 at 05:13 PM.
Lots of work from both sides.
I'm sure we're all interested to see what we find out next.
Last edited by SonnyakaPig; Sep 11, 2012 at 12:01 AM.
Last edited by SonnyakaPig; Sep 12, 2012 at 03:51 AM.
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.)
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.
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
The Best of Mercedes & AMG
May be it is possible to find other Assurance company which propose such service, I don't stil find
That said, I have a feeling that in the long run MBUSA will do after warranty fixes for this issue since it's now well known and they are fully aware of it.
Last edited by jnsn78; Sep 20, 2012 at 04:01 PM.
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!
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?

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!



