—
A 20-year Mercedes-Benz rear subframe extended warranty and reimbursement program allegedly isn’t good enough, according to a class action lawsuit filed by 28 owners.
The lawsuit alleges these vehicles are prone to subframe rust, and corrosion of other components under the vehicles.
- 2010-2022 Mercedes-Benz C-Class
- 2010-2022 Mercedes-Benz E-Class
- 2010-2015 Mercedes-Benz GLK-Class
- 2010-2022 Mercedes-Benz CLS-Class
- 2010-2020 Mercedes-Benz SLK/SLC-Class
- 2016-2022 Mercedes-Benz GLC-Class
- 2010-2022 Mercedes-Benz SL-Class
According to the class action lawsuit, Mercedes supposedly knew in 1999 that it was at least possible the subframes could rust, and allegedly certainly knew in 2009 the subframes were rusting.
The 476 page Mercedes subframe rust class action was consolidated from these subframe class actions: Averbach v. Mercedes-Benz, Forte v. Mercedes-Benz, Russell v. Mercedes-Benz, Weber v. Mercedes-Benz, and Sowa v. Mercedes-Benz.
Mercedes Subframe Extended Warranty
Mercedes-Benz issued the rear subframe extended warranty in February 2023, which includes these vehicles.
- 2005-2011 Mercedes-Benz SLK-Class (R171)
- 2012-2017 Mercedes-Benz SLK-Class (R172)
- 2012-2016 Mercedes-Benz CLS-Class (C218)
- 2013-2016 Mercedes-Benz SL-Class (R231)
- 2008-2015 Mercedes-Benz C-Class Sedan/Coupe (W/C204)
- 2010-2015 Mercedes-Benz GLK-Class (X204)
- 2010-2016 Mercedes-Benz E-Class Sedan/Wagon (W/S212)
- 2010-2017 Mercedes-Benz E-Class Coupe/Cabrio (C/A207)
This extended the original 4-year/50,000-mile rear subframe warranty to 20 years and unlimited miles, regardless of who owns the vehicle. The Mercedes extended warranty applies to replacement of the rear subframe if it corrodes and has perforation (holes).
Additionally, the warranty extension provides reimbursement if a customer previously paid for the replacement of a perforated rear subframe due to rust and corrosion.
According to the Mercedes-Benz subframe warranty extension:
“This extended warranty does not include the costs of an authorized Mercedes-Benz dealership’s inspection of the vehicle during the recommended maintenance intervals. However, if an authorized Mercedes-Benz dealership confirms that the vehicle’s rear subframe requires replacement due to corrosion with perforation, the inspection and replacement will be performed at no cost to the customer.”
All affected vehicle owners were contacted to let them know about the subframe rust warranty extension.
Lawsuit Alleges Extended Warranty Isn’t Good Enough
Mercedes argues the subframe rust class action lawsuit is a waste of time because customers have been offered reimbursements and 20-year subframe replacement warranties.
But the plaintiffs complain the warranty extension does nothing for customers who overpaid for the vehicles when they were first purchased. The plaintiffs also contend the Mercedes subframe warranty extension doesn’t include all affected vehicles.
Additionally, the class action alleges the subframe extended warranty should include numerous other components that may rust, including the brake lines, gas lines, rear suspension springs and exhaust systems.
And even though Mercedes contacted all customers affected by the subframe rust extended warranty, the plaintiffs claim it wasn’t good enough and didn’t adequately warn vehicle owners of the corrosion problem.
And while Mercedes offers reimbursement for past expenses related to subframe rust, the class action says it isn’t good enough. The plaintiffs complain Mercedes should reimburse vehicle owners for numerous components under the vehicles that could rust.
The plaintiffs further complain the subframe extended warranty isn’t good enough because owners aren’t reimbursed for towing and rental vehicle expenses caused by rusted Mercedes subframes.
The Mercedes-Benz subframe class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia: Sowa, et al., v. Mercedes-Benz Group AG, et al.
The plaintiffs are represented by Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, and Corpus Law Patel, LLC, DiCello Levitt, Feldman Shepherd Wohlgelernter Tanner Weinstock Dodig LLP, Freed Kanner London & Millen LLLC, Tadler Law LLP, Councill, Gunnemann & Chally, LLC, Spector Roseman & Kodroff, P.C., Frederick Law Group, PLLC, Shub & Johns LLC, and Aylstock, Witkin, Kreis & Overholtz, PLLC.
The Mercedes-Benz rear subframe rust class action lawsuit was filed by these customers:
- Tenika Neil / California / 2012 Mercedes-Benz GLK 350
- Stephen V. Caggiano / Connecticut / 2012 Mercedes-Benz C 300
- Catherine Harris / Florida / 2014 Mercedes-Benz SLK 350
- Meri New / Georgia / 2018 Mercedes-Benz C 300
- Latoya Clay / Georgia / 2015 Mercedes-Benz C 300
- Christian Kodom / Illinois / 2014 Mercedes-Benz E 350
- Jack Powell / Indiana / 2010 Mercedes-Benz E 350
- Lisa Turner / Kentucky / 2012 Mercedes-Benz C 300
- Mike Xie / Maryland / 2010 Mercedes-Benz GLK
- Christine Cooper / New Hampshire / 2014 Mercedes-Benz E 350
- Pasquale Russolillo / Massachusetts / 2010 Mercedes-Benz C 300
- Edward Michael Jacobs / Michigan / 2010 Mercedes-Benz C 300
- Thomas Koby / Missouri / 2010 Mercedes-Benz E 350 4Matic AMG Sport
- Monique Edwards / Illinois / 2014 Mercedes-Benz C 300
- Yauwen Lin / New Jersey / 2011 Mercedes-Benz C 300
- Stanley King / New Jersey / 2010 Mercedes-Benz E 350
- Samuel Ortiz / New York / 2015 Mercedes-Benz E 350
- Jack Simpson / Ohio / 2013 Mercedes-Benz C 300
- Brian Laakso / Ohio / 2011 Mercedes-Benz E 350
- Edward and Courtney Bourne / Kentucky / 2012 Mercedes-Benz CLS 550
- Giuseppe Garofalo / Pennsylvania / 2013 Mercedes-Benz C 300
- Anthony Russell / Pennsylvania / 2013 Mercedes Benz C 300 4Matic
- Alexander Sowa / Rhode Island / 2014 Mercedes-Benz C 300 4Matic
- Raymond Robinson / Massachusetts / 2014 Mercedes-Benz E 350
- Park C. Thomas / Florida / 2013 Mercedes-Benz C 300 4Matic
- Curtis Willis / Texas / 2013 Mercedes-Benz E 550
- Alma Brown / Texas / 2011 Mercedes-Benz E 350
- Owen Licht / New York / 2012 Mercedes-Benz C 300