Reuters reports on motorist outrage at the notion that GM
sat on information concerning a faulty ignition switch in its cars for years
without informing regulators. The article details the experiences of several
drivers of affected cars, some of whom have posted complaints on the website
arfc.org, which sends information to NHTSA. The article notes the ongoing NHTSA
probe as well as the Administration’s description of the faulty switch that
could get shifted from the “on” position to the “accessory” position. The
article also references plaintiffs’ attorneys from civil litigation who scoff
at GM’s offer of a $500 credit towards the purchase or lease of a new car for affected
drivers.
The Detroit Free Press reports that a lawsuit has been filed
stemming from a 2006 crash in Wisconsin that killed two teenage girls who were
driving in a 2005 Chevrolet Cobalt, one of the vehicles affected by the recall.
The suit is also being filed “on behalf of anyone who has bought or leased a
vehicle suspected of having a faulty ignition switch” and seeks compensation
for the decrease in resale value for the affected vehicles. Plaintiffs allege
that the accident in question was not related to alcohol use but was rather affected
by the shutting down of power systems caused by the malfunctioning switch. The
article notes that the lawsuit “could be the first test of GM’s legal immunity
from liability for deaths or injuries in accidents that happened before the
current company was created” following the 2009 bankruptcy. The article notes
that GM documents filed with NHTSA “show the company knew of a problem with
ignition switches on early Saturn Ions as early as 2001.”
The New York Times reports that Canadian politicians are
looking into how national transportation officials handled the information they
had on the ignition switch issue. Transport Canada had recently announced “that
it would investigate the links between General Motors’ ignition-switch defects
and a fatal crash last June.” The article notes that 236,000 of the recalled
vehicles across six models are in Canada. The accident from June 2013 occurred
in Quebec and involved a “high-severity motor-vehicle collision when the
vehicle went off road and impacted multiple trees,” killing the driver who was
not wearing a seatbelt at the time.
USA Today reports that Transport Canada is analyzing black
box data from the vehicle, identified as a 2007 Chevrolet Cavalier. The last
known fatality to have been linked to the defect was in 2009, while the article
notes that GM mechanics noticed the issue in 2004 while testing the 2005 Chevy
Cobalt. The article also points out that NHTSA’s fine for GM could be as high
as $35 million, while the Department of Justice is said to be examining the
possibility for criminal charges.
Bloomberg News reports that the recall, which was only
doubled to include 1.6 million vehicles on February 25, has “clouded the
reputation of the biggest U.S. automaker ... and raised a question that
investigators in Washington, New York and inside GM are pursuing in parallel:
Why didn’t GM recognize the potential dangers sooner?” NHTSA Spokesman Nathan
Naylor reportedly explained that NHTSA “didn’t force GM to conduct the recall
sooner because GM hadn’t provided timely information about the connection
between defective ignition switches and failing air bags.” The article
discusses at length a wrongful death lawsuit being pressed by Georgia
plaintiffs stemming from a 2010 crash. The article includes a statement from GM
Spokesperson Greg Martin acknowledging that the company’s decision-making
process “was not as robust as it should have been.”
The Automotive News reports on a fatal 2009 crash in
Pennsylvania in which a 2005 Cobalt’s airbags failed to deploy, with NHTSA
investigators unable to provide a connection to the ignition switch issue at
the time. The article provides a timeline of the events in the case, including
a related 2005 service bulletin that GM had sent out. The article also notes
that GM must provide “reams” of information to House and Senate committees by
March 25 and must address the 107-question list from NHTSA by April 3. One
industry analyst compares the crisis for GM to the infamous Ford Pinto episode,
and the article suggests that the $100 million in repair costs could pale in
comparison to results from the wave of litigation and potential government
fines.
GM retains two law firms to investigate how company handled
ignition switch defect. Under the headline “General Motors Calls The Lawyers,”
the New York Times reports at length on GM’s choice to retain law firms King
& Spalding and Jenner & Block, to proceed with a thorough
“investigation into why the company failed for more than a decade to alert
regulators and consumers to the defect.” According to the report, “hiring outside
counsel in these cases is part investigation, part public-relations gambit and
part legal strategy.” The report notes that the company’s decision to retain
the two firms happened “just days after” NHTSA sent GM “a detailed order”
demanding answers to “107 specific questions related to the defect and the
company’s handling of it.”
The Los Angeles Times reports that GM “has acknowledged to
the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration that at least 12 deaths and
31 traffic accidents have been linked to its vehicles’ faulty ignition
switches.”
GM customers file class action suits.
TIME reports that a class action suit representing
“customers claiming their vehicles lost value because of serious safety
problems with General Motors vehicles” was filed on Friday, and will probably
be just “the first of many.” The suit says that “GM’s mishandling of the
ignition switch defect....has adversely affected the company’s reputation as a
manufacturer of safe, reliable vehicles with high resale value.”
Bloomberg News reports that attorney Bob Hillard and other
lawyers filed for a class-action suit against GM yesterday in Federal court in
Corpus Christi, Texas, seeking “to recover $6 billion to $10 billion for the
lost value of cars affected by the recall.” As for the fact that GM’s
bankruptcy makes it no longer liable for accidents that happened before it
sought bankruptcy protection, Hillard comments that “I’m going to go back to
that bankruptcy judge and say, ‘You have to undo this, the liability of old GM,
because it was the new GM’s continued coverup after the bankruptcy that allowed
people to be hurt or killed.’” According to Bingham Greenebaum Doll LLP bankruptcy
attorney Chip Bowles, however, “A few bankruptcy cases have been set aside for
fraud on the court, but you have to establish deliberate fraud and
concealment.”
The CBS Evening News broadcast briefly on the suit, while
the Detroit Free Press also reports.
NHTSA reaffirms there was not enough evidence to warrant
investigating GM. In continuing coverage of the General Motors recall of 1.6
million vehicles, most outlets are focusing on NHTSA’s and the company’s
responses to highly vocal criticism. Several national outlets, such as ABC
News, USA Today, Time, and CNN’s Money, are picking up the story that first
appeared in the New York Times on a study by the Center for Auto Safety that
counted 303 deaths in crashes involving the same type of GM vehicles that have
been recalled. The CAS study further implied that NHTSA should have acted more
swiftly to open a recall investigation.
The website of GMAuthority reports with continuing coverage
of Secretary Foxx’s testimony to the Senate Appropriations Committee on
Thursday. Foxx claimed that “Over the last decade there were complaints related
to (these) particular vehicle(s), and despite three crash investigations and
other research, the data was inconclusive. It just didn’t point to a formal
investigation.” The report also notes that “Foxx said the NHTSA launched three
crash investigations between 2004-2006, with two of those having their ignition
switched moved from ‘run’ to ‘accessory,’ which may have disabled the air
bags,” although “three people perished in those two accidents.”
WXYZ-TV Detroit reports from its website that Foxx added,
“NHTSA is currently looking for ways to improve its own investigations and
recall processes.”
ABC News reports online that the Center for Auto Safety
conducted a review of Federal crash data and found that “303 people died after
airbags failed to deploy in two of the General Motors car brands that were
recalled last month.” GM dismissed the findings as being overly simplified,
and, likewise, the report notes that NHTSA is claiming that “there was still
not enough evidence to require a formal investigation into airbag defects.”
USA Today reports from its website, saying that the NYTimes
noted that Friedman Research, the group commissioned by the Center for Auto
Safety to go through the Fatality Analysis Reporting System, “looked for non-rear
impact crashes in which the bags did not deploy.” USA Today conducted its own
analysis of NHTSA files, though, and found that the agency’s records “show only
87 complaints involving the recalled GM vehicles in the ‘stall’ category,” and
there were “no deaths are among those.”
TIME reports that on Thursday the Center for Auto Safety
stated in a letter that “NHTSA could and should have initiated a defect
investigation to determine why airbags were not deploying in Cobalts and Ions
in increasing numbers.” GM spokesperson Greg Martin responded, however, to the
NYTimes story, saying that “without rigorous analysis, it is pure speculation
to attempt to draw any meaningful conclusions.”
For its part, the Detroit Free Press notes that “death
counts can be misleading in the midst of a recall,” citing the case of Toyota’s
sudden acceleration recall where a government probe later uncovered that “only
five deaths were tied to unexpected acceleration in Toyota and Lexus vehicles.”
The report also says that NHTSA reiterated, “When NHTSA finds a trend that
indicates a vehicle may be an outlier, we take action.”
The Detroit Bureau reports that former NHTSA Administrator
Joan Claybrook “said the current threshold for ordering an investigation is too
tough and officials don’t seem to understand that it should be much lower.”
Additionally, CAS Executive Director Clarence Ditlow says that GM should have
been more proactive as well, because “the whole point of the recall is to
eliminate the product liability lawsuit, which causes quite a bit of damage to
(an automaker’s) brand as well as costing a lot of money in damages.”
We believe that obtaining legal satisfaction from those who
harmed you shouldn’t require more hardship. That’s why we do everything we can
to streamline the process, and we will file a lawsuit on your behalf if
necessary. If you or a loved one has been affected by this recall, and you
believe it caused an injury, contact Chhabra & Gibbs today by going to our
website at www.cglawms.com or calling this
number: 601-948-8005.
