Lawyers Who Sued Takata Target a New Airbag Manufacturer
Many of the same plaintiffs lawyers involved in the Takata airbag lawsuits have filed class actions over allegedly defective airbags made by ZF-TRW Automotive Holdings Corp., after NHTSA expanded an investigation in April.
June 28, 2019 at 07:30 PM
6 minute read
Plaintiffs lawyers, many of whom filed lawsuits over the Takata airbag recalls, have brought more than a dozen class actions against another airbag manufacturer and several automakers, including Honda and Toyota.
The suits follow an April 19 announcement by the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration expanding an existing investigation of ZF-TRW Automotive Holdings Corp.'s airbags, supplied to Hyundai Motor America and Kia Motors America Inc., to include automakers FCA US LLC (Fiat Chrysler), American Honda Motor Co. Inc., Toyota Motor Sales USA Inc. and Mitsubishi Motors North America Inc. Many of those automakers are defendants in the lawsuits, along with ZF-TRW, based in Germany, and have brought in outside counsel to address the litigation.
By some accounts, the cases mimic those against Takata, which paid $1 billion to resolve a criminal probe by the U.S. Justice Department before its North American unit, TK Holdings Inc., filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Six automakers, including Toyota and Honda, paid $1.5 billion to resolve class actions brought over Takata airbags.
In a motion filed Friday before the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, plaintiffs lawyer David Boies asked to send all the cases to the Southern District of Florida, where U.S. District Judge Federico Moreno oversaw the Takata lawsuits.
“In Takata, plaintiffs alleged nearly identical claims: that defective vehicle safety equipment was provided to vehicle manufacturers and installed in millions of vehicles; that defendants knew of the defect, which could lead to serious bodily injury or death; that defendants concealed this defect from the public while continuing to advertise their products as safe and reliable; and that defendants demonstrated a blatant disregard for public welfare and safety,” wrote Boies, of Boies Schiller Flexner in Armonk, New York.
Many of the same plaintiffs lawyers are involved, such as Boies; Elizabeth Cabraser of San Francisco's Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, and Peter Prieto of Miami's Podhurst Orseck, who was lead counsel in the Takata MDL.
Fiat Chrysler, named in five of the new cases, raised an argument in a Thursday motion against multidistrict litigation that many of the automakers did in Takata: They don't want to be lumped together with their competitors on a single docket.
“FCA US, Honda, Hyundai/Kia, Mitsubishi, and Toyota are all direct business competitors who have devoted a tremendous amount of time and money to designing, testing, and marketing their respective vehicles,” wrote Thomas Azar, a partner at Thompson Coburn in St. Louis, in a filing Wednesday. “Much of this work is highly confidential and proprietary.”
Fiat Chrysler, he wrote, opposed such an “overbroad and unwieldly 'catch-all' MDL proceeding.”
Fiat Chrysler spokesman Michael Palese declined to comment.
Other defense lawyers appearing in the cases are:
- Matthew Regan, a partner at Kirkland & Ellis in Chicago, for ZF-TRW.
- Lance Etcheverry, a partner at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom in Palo Alto, California, for Hyundai and Kia.
- Eric Mattson, of Sidley Austin in Chicago, for Honda.
- Michael Mallow, of Shook, Hardy & Bacon in Los Angeles, for Toyota.
- Douglas Robinson, of Palmieri, Tyler, Wiener, Wilhelm & Waldron in Irvine, California, for Mitsubishi.
ZF-TRW spokesman Jin Cha declined to comment. None of the other defense lawyers responded to requests for comment.
The lawsuits draw comparisons to Takata. They allege that ZF-TRW, and Hyundai and Kia, knew about the defect as early as 2011 because they were aware of crashes in which airbags failed. They also had been communicating with NHTSA about the specific defect. Some cases allege that Hyundai and Kia engaged in a racketeering conspiracy with ZF-TRW to hide the problem from the public and NHTSA.
NHTSA began investigating in 2018.
But there are distinct differences—most glaringly, that automakers have not instituted a recall like that of Takata, which involved 42 million vehicles, the largest automotive recall in U.S. history. NHTSA, in its April announcement, estimated that 12.3 million cars could have the defective ZF-TRW airbags but, so far, automakers Fiat Chrysler, Hyundai and Kia have recalled only 2.5 million cars. And none of those recalls involved vehicles in the class actions, according to the lawsuits.
Melissa Troutner, a partner at Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, called the cases “completely different” from Takata.
Her firm—along with Carella, Byrne, Cecchi, Olstein, Brody & Agnello; Robbins, Geller, Rudman & Dowd; and Seeger Weiss—brought the initial motion this month to coordinate the cases into multidistrict litigation. But they suggested the venue should be the Central District of California, home to Hyundai and Kia, or, as an alternative, the Eastern District of Michigan, home to ZF-TRW's U.S. unit.
“The similarities end at some of the same defendants, and the fact that airbags are involved,” she said. “This is a very different issue with regard to the airbag system.”
In Takata, the airbags deployed when they should not have, causing at least 20 deaths and hundreds of injuries. But airbags made by ZF-TRW aren't deploying, the lawsuits say. That means that, although the lawsuits attribute six serious injuries and four deaths to the defect, the airbags themselves are not the cause—just contributors.
The lawsuits claim that a defective airbag control unit causes airbags not to deploy in the event of a crash, risking “serious injury or death.” The units contain a circuit, which monitors signals from crash sensors in the cars. But those circuits have failed under electrical overstress, according to the lawsuits.
The class actions claim consumers have lost money because their cars have diminished in value due to the defect.
So far, 14 class actions are pending in California, Florida, Michigan, New York and Washington. But more could be on their way.
“It is likely that the number of related actions filed in the coming weeks, across multiple jurisdictions, will increase significantly,” Boies wrote.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllFilm Company Alleges Elon Musk, Tesla Used AI to Mimic 'Blade Runner' Scene
6 minute readFederal Judge Approves Agreement to Remove Knockoff Product From E-Commerce Platforms
Trending Stories
- 1Trump's Return to the White House: The Legal Industry Reacts
- 2Climate Disputes, International Arbitration, and State Court Limitations for Global Issues
- 3Judicial Face-Off: Navigating the Ethical and Efficient Use of AI in Legal Practice [CLE Pending]
- 4The Law Firm Disrupted: Big Law Profits Vs. Political Values
- 5Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250