Chevrolet Cruze Forums banner
1 - 4 of 17 Posts

· Premium Member
Joined
·
5,301 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Ruling Opens GM to Billions in Death, Injury Claims


A federal appeals court ruling that
General Motors can't use its 2009 bankruptcy to fend off lawsuits over faulty and dangerous ignition switches exposes the automaker to billions in additional liabilities, according to legal experts.


The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan on Wednesday ruled that GM knew about the defective switches when it entered bankruptcy seven years ago but kept them secret from the bankruptcy court. By failing to disclose the problems, GM prevented crash victims from making claims or contesting the bankruptcy provisions, robbing them of due process, the court ruled.
In a 74-page opinion, a three-judge panel said that GM essentially asked the court to reward it for concealing claims. "We decline to do so," the court said.
Under terms of the government-funded bankruptcy, the company that emerged, referred to as New GM, was indemnified against most claims against the pre-bankruptcy company, or Old GM. Retired U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Robert Gerber ruled in April 2015 that most ignition-switch claimants could not sue New GM for damages because the company should emerge from bankruptcy free of claims against Old GM.
But the appeals court overturned most of that decision and allowed hundreds of pre-bankruptcy claims to proceed, including some lawsuits alleging that GM's actions caused the value of its cars to drop.
"I think GM now has to think about its potential exposure as being in the billions," said Erik Gordon, a lawyer and professor at the University of Michigan's Ross School of Business.
When Gerber's ruling came out, plaintiffs' lawyers said it blocked $7 billion to $10 billion in potential legal liabilities.
Steve Berman, a lead attorney in the loss-of-value cases, said the appeals court ruled the bankruptcy order doesn't protect New GM from claims that it misrepresented the safety of cars made by pre-bankruptcy GM. The appeals judges, he said, determined that Old GM knew that the cars could stall and air bags wouldn't work but didn't reveal those facts during the bankruptcy.
"At minimum, Old GM knew about moving stalls and air bag non-deployments in certain models and should have revealed those facts in bankruptcy," the court said. "If a debtor does not reveal claims that it is aware of, then bankruptcy law cannot protect it."
Gerber's ruling took away legal rights of crash victims because they never got a chance to contest the bankruptcy seven years ago, yet they were barred from suing New GM after the defective switches were disclosed, said William Weintraub, an attorney representing ignition switch accident plaintiffs. "The only person who could effectively make an argument in 2009 is somebody who bought a time machine," Weintraub said.
About 1,000 death and injury lawsuits were put on hold waiting for the appeals court to rule, said Robert Hilliard, another attorney in the case. General Motors' filings with securities regulators say there are another 101 U.S. lawsuits pending that allege that GM's actions caused vehicle values to decline.
Gordon said the loss-of-value cases will be difficult to prove, but the death and injury cases are problematic for GM.
General Motors Co. said Wednesday it is weighing options, including an appeal. The company said the appeals court did not decide whether claims against GM are valid. "Many of the claims we face have been brought on behalf of car owners who want to be compensated even though they have not suffered any loss," a company statement said.
The ignition switches, which were put in small cars like the Chevrolet Cobalt, can slip out of the run position and cause cars to stall unexpectedly. They are linked to at least 124 deaths and 275 injuries.
In its ruling, the appeals court said that the desire to move GM through bankruptcy quickly to avoid its collapse was "laudable," but it doesn't do away with basic constitutional principles. It took only 40 days for the bankruptcy to end, an unprecedented period at the time.
"Due process applies even in a company's moment of crisis," the court wrote.
The ruling also could affect 399 injury and death cases settled for GM by compensation expert Kenneth Feinberg for a total of $594.5 million. GM says those who settled gave up their legal rights to sue the company, but Hilliard said he will look into whether some of those claims could be reopened in light of the court's ruling.


Court Ruling Opens GM to Billions in Death, Injury Claims - ABC News
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
5,301 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
I still have never had an issue with mine. And my wife had two and never had a problem. Both of us used to absolutely load the **** out of our key rings.

Mine is lowered, with poly/solid mounts - it should be a poster child for this, and it's never once happened.

Then again, I never found myself driving drunk without a seat belt off of the road to cause it to turn off.

Also, some vehicles saw their value increase. I would like to be enlightened how you can sue someone for it decreasing, when it increased.
On my last 5 new cars spanning the past 25 years, 4 of the owners manuals had warnings about extra keys and accessories attached to your Key ring, the reason given being for the lock cylinder and proper operation. I thought is was common knowledge not to do this? Sure Cars was never designed to turn off, but I can see how this would happen on many cars causing the ignition position to move and lock the steering column
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
5,301 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 · (Edited)
Funny thing about the 2014 CRUZE Manual as it doesn't seem to mention anything about not adding other keys, flashlights, rabbits feet, tools, and lord knows what else to the key ring. I noticed this a couple years ago and found it strange as I had a steering wheel lock on an old Toyota as a kid after coasting for about 15 minutes. It was beautiful until I almost flew off the Freeway and it would have been 100% my fault as I turned off the engine in motion. In fact that experience might have saved my life a few years ago when my All Weather mat bunched up under the accelerator causing my Sonata to lose control, having to cut the engine while going about 80 and exiting the road at the correct angle to avoid a tree and a Telephone B box and a pole, or head on traffic in the other direction
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
5,301 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
Eddy,

The gen 1 Cruze will continue to steer without the engine running. You may not have power assist but the car won't lock the steering either as long as the key is in the ignition. The car's brakes also work.
How did you know this? I just tested it and you seem exactly right, of course I didn't want to force the wheel with the engine off that much and mess up the linkage. Brakes would seem another story in motion, I just can't see them working with no hydraulic power after a minute or two?
 
1 - 4 of 17 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top