—
A Chevy Volt battery engine control module (BECM) lawsuit alleges all 2016-2019 Volt cars are defective, but the most recent court ruling shot down the chance for a nationwide class action lawsuit.
The Chevrolet Volt contains a BECM with an internal component built by a former supplier, but the modules can fail and cause the Volts to lose propulsion.
In addition to a stall, a BECM failure can cause the Volt to activate a warning light and a message to the driver. A BECM failure will also cause charging to stop and the Volt may not start.
The Chevy Volt BECM lawsuit says General Motors has long known about BECM failures because dealers were issued a technical service bulletin about the modules. TSB 18-NA-261 was issued regarding 2016-2019 Volt BECM failures that set these diagnostic trouble codes: U2603, U2604, U2605, U2606, U2617, U2618, U2619, U2620, U2621, U2622, U2623 and/or U2624.
In November 2023, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration opened an investigation following complaints about BECM failures in 2016-2019 Chevrolet Volt cars. Owners complained their cars lost power, stalled while driving and couldn’t be restarted due to BECM failures.
But in March 2024, GM issued a BECM warranty extension (N232432680) for 2016-2018 Chevrolet Volts which provides a BECM extended warranty from 8 years/100,000 miles to 15 years/150,000 miles.
NHTSA closed its Chevy Bolt BECM investigation based on the technical service bulletin, warranty extension, and because General Motors is replacing the faulty BECMs with components from a different supplier.
Chevy Volt BECM Lawsuit — No Nationwide Class Action
In a 165-page opinion, Judge Jonathan J.C. Grey went to work by ruling whether the plaintiffs may pursue claims on behalf of a nationwide class of Volt customers. General Motors argues the plaintiffs lack standing to assert claims under the laws of states in which they do not reside or in which they have not suffered a supposed injury.
The judge admits courts in the district are split on the issue, but Judge Grey ruled the plaintiffs lack standing to sue under the laws of states where they neither reside nor suffered an injury. This will rule out customers in at least 30 states.
GM also argues certain alleged misrepresentations are non-actionable puffery (exaggeration), and the judge agreed. But Judge Grey refused to dismiss claims alleging GM concealed the problems.
According to the BECM lawsuit, GM committed fraud because the automaker made “unqualified promises” regarding the Chevy Volt electric battery range. The plaintiffs contend GM highlighted the Chevy Volt had an estimated driving range of over 400 miles, 50 to 53 of which could be achieved without gas power.
But according to the judge:
“Plaintiffs cannot maintain an affirmative fraud claim for the alleged unqualified promises because plaintiffs have not established that GM knew the statements were fraudulent before it sold the Class Vehicles.”
GM’s estimates are not actionable because the plaintiffs have not shown GM knew the Volts could not reach 50 miles of range in all-electric mode.
“If plaintiffs are relying on GM’s knowledge of the BECM-related defect to show that GM knew of the Class Vehicles inability to achieve the 50+ miles of electric vehicle range, plaintiffs’ argument also fails. That is because, as GM argues, plaintiffs do not say how the alleged defect is related to a reduction in electric vehicle range.” — Judge Grey
The plaintiffs even sued GM over its courtesy transportation typically offered during vehicle warranty repairs. The class action lawsuit alleges GM should be held accountable for an “affirmative misrepresentation claim” for stating this:
“If your vehicle requires warranty repairs during the Limited Powertrain Warranty coverage period (8 years/100,000 miles for repairs warrantable under the Hybrid/Electric Propulsion Limited Warranty), alternate transportation and/or reimbursement of certain transportation expenses may be available under the Courtesy Transportation Program. Several transportation options are available.”
But the judge ruled the plaintiffs fail to explain what is fraudulent about the statement.
“A plain reading of the sentence makes clear that GM did not guarantee courtesy transportation; it only stated the program may be available.” — Judge Grey
The judge also had problems with some of the allegations made by the plaintiffs. According to the Volt class action, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration received more than 500 complaints about the Chevy Volts and most of the complaints “relate to vehicle functions affected by the BECM.”
But Judge Grey found NHTSA’s own investigation says the government received only 61 complaints about Chevrolet Volt BECMs.
In addition, the plaintiffs claim most of the BECM complaints were filed shortly after the release of the 2016 Chevy Volt. But the judge found the plaintiffs do not allege all of the complaints predated the purchase or first sale of the Volts for 11 of the owners who sued.
The Chevy Volt BECM lawsuit was filed by these plaintiffs:
- Jason Miller / Kansas / 2017 Chevy Volt
- Jason Willhite / Arkansas / 2018 Chevy Volt
- Govindarajulu Varadarajan / California / 2017 Chevy Volt
- Urs Zuger and Laurie Zuger / Colorado / 2016 Chevy Volt
- Ray Gustafson / Florida / 2016 Chevy Volt
- Clare Mansell / Georgia / 2017 Chevy Volt
- Gabriel Hogan / Michigan / 2017 Chevy Volt
- Daniel Blanke / Missouri / 2019 Chevy Volt
- Felicity Broennan / New Mexico / 2017 Chevy Volt
- Alisa Colley / New York / 2017 Chevy Volt
- James Ewer / North Carolina / 2017 Chevy Volt
- Dwayne Graham / South Carolina / 2018 Chevy Volt
- Thomas Campanis / Tennessee / 2017 Chevy Volt
- Amy Stewart / Tennessee / 2018 Chevy Volt
- Robert Barnes / Oklahoma / 2017 Chevy Volt
- Suzanne O’Neil / Maryland / 2017 Chevy Volt
- David Collins / Connecticut / 2016 Chevy Volt
- Holly Wood / Utah / 2017 Chevy Volt
Certain claims will proceed for Volt customers in the above states.
The Chevy Volt BECM lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (Southern Division): Jason Miller, et al., v. General Motors, LLC.
The plaintiff is represented by Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C., Branstetter Stranch & Jennings, PLLC, and the Indian and Environmental Law Group, PLLC.