—
A Ford cutaway class action lawsuit has been dismissed after the Illinois plaintiffs failed to adequately allege their claims.
The Ford class action includes RV owners who “purchased or leased in the State of Illinois a completed motor home vehicle utilizing a Ford E-Series Cutaway [from] 2018” onward.
Plaintiffs Ricardo and Marleinet Gurrola purchased a recreational vehicle from an Illinois RV dealer in March 2022. According to the lawsuit, the RV was built on a Ford chassis known as a Cutaway. A chassis is the skeletal framework of a vehicle with a load-bearing frame that provides the backbone for everything else.
Specifically, the plaintiffs purchased an RV built on a 2022 Ford E-450 Dual-Rear Wheel Cutaway, or what is known as an “incomplete vehicle.”
“An ‘incomplete vehicle’ is an ‘assemblage consisting, at a minimum, of chassis (including the frame) structure, power train, steering system, suspension system, and braking system, in the state that those systems are to be part of the completed vehicle, but requires further manufacturing operations to become a completed vehicle.’” — Description according to U.S. federal regulations
Once Ford builds an E-Series Cutaway, the automaker sells it to a final-stage manufacturer which turns it into a “completed” vehicle. Third-party manufacturers build a vehicle body on top of the Cutaway frame to make finished RVs, dump trucks, ambulances, etc.
When Ford delivers a Cutaway to a final-stage manufacturer, it must include the frame’s “gross vehicle weight rating,” which goes by the acronym GVWR. The GVWR is the maximum weight a vehicle can safely handle, but a final-stage manufacturer cannot alter the suspension without voiding Ford’s warranty to the end customer.
After a few thousands miles of travel, the plaintiffs noticed the RV was constantly pulling to one side, so they took it to a Ford dealer because the warranty required service at a Ford dealership. The dealer determined the wheel alignment was not correct, but the Ford dealer said it couldn’t adjust the alignment because it would require aftermarket parts, meaning replacement parts not made by Ford.
However, installing aftermarket parts would void the Ford warranty.
According to a Ford advertisement for the 2021 model year, the E-Series suspension came “with caster/camber adjustment.” But the lawsuit says the plaintiffs had a 2022 model. The plaintiffs complain they received “the exact opposite: a fixed caster camber,” meaning the suspension did not allow for any adjustment. Any extra weight could cause the RV to weave or pull to one side while driving.
“So the Gurrolas went their own way. They purchased aftermarket parts and had them installed, paying $1,836 for the fix. But the Gurrolas don’t want to get stuck with the tab. They believe that Ford should cover the alignment under the warranty.” — Ford class action lawsuit
Ford Cutaway Lawsuit Dismissed
Judge Steven C. Seeger dismissed the entire class action, beginning with arguments regarding breach of warranties.
The plaintiffs argue Ford breached the warranty by failing to pay for the wheel alignment. And as with vehicle class actions, whether a vehicle is defective typically has nothing to do with the arguments. This Ford Cutaway class action is a good example.
Ford said the Cutaway warranty didn’t cover the repairs, but that’s not why the judge dismissed the warranty claims. According to Ford, the plaintiffs failed to give Ford notice of the alleged breach of warranty before the class action lawsuit was filed. The judge agreed.
“This Court doesn’t need to get into the scope of the warranty. The Court agrees that the Gurrolas failed to give notice as required by Illinois law. Illinois law requires buyers to provide notice before suing for breach of warranty. That obligation covers both express warranties and implied warranties. No notice, no claim. Giving notice about a general problem that affects a group of people isn’t good enough.” — Judge Seeger
According to the plaintiffs, they provided notice in two ways. First, their lawyers attempted to settle their warranty claims on a class-wide basis before filing the Cutaway lawsuit. Second, the plaintiffs took their RV to a Ford dealership for repairs.
But according to the judge, the Gurrolas didn’t provide notice to Ford as Illinois law requires. The judge ruled the settlement talks between the plaintiffs and Ford don’t count as notice because they discussed the claims of a class, not the claims of the Gurrolas in particular. And taking the RV to a Ford dealership isn’t the same thing as giving notice to the Ford Motor Company, the company that was sued.
The judge ruled it isn’t good enough to tell a manufacturer that consumers in general are having problems with a product.
The plaintiffs point to an exchange of emails between their lawyers and counsel for Ford in April 2023, meaning one month before the Gurrolas filed the E-Series Cutaway class action lawsuit.
The emails included a draft of a proposed class action settlement, but it didn’t mention the Gurrolas. Instead, the judge found “it swept broadly, covering all Ford owners and lessees of Covered Vehicles.”
The plaintiffs also argue they provided notice to Ford when they took their RV for service at a Ford dealership. But the text of the Illinois statute requires a buyer to give notice to a “seller.”
“[T]he buyer must within a reasonable time after he discovers or should have discovered any breach notify the seller of breach or be barred from any remedy.” — Judge Seeger
According to the judge, the word “seller” sounds like it refers to the entity that did the selling, and if that’s what the statute meant, then the claim would be “sunk from the get-go.” The Gurrolas bought the vehicle from an RV dealer, not the Ford dealership.
“But that’s not what ‘seller’ means. The Illinois Supreme Court has interpreted that word to mean something different than common parlance. The ‘seller’ is the entity that gives the warranty.” — Judge Seeger
Without giving pre-lawsuit notice to Ford Motor Company specifically about the plaintiffs and their problem, the plaintiffs have no breach of warranty claims.
The judge went on to dismiss a federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act claim because dismissal of the state-law warranty claims requires the dismissal of the federal claim.
And finally, the judge dismissed a claim for violating the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practice Act that prohibits engaging in “unfair or deceptive acts or practices.”
According to Judge Seeger:
A claim under the ICFA requires a plaintiff to show “(1) a deceptive act or practice by the defendant; (2) the defendant intended that the plaintiff rely on the deception; (3) the deceptive act occurred in a course of conduct involving trade or commerce; and (4) actual damages to the plaintiff; (5) proximately caused by the deceptive act.”
However, the judge dismissed the claim because he found the Ford Cutaway class action lawsuit did not allege a deceptive act or practice, and the lawsuit “does not allege proximate causation, either.”
The Ford cutaway class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Eastern Division): Ricardo and Marleinet Gurrola v. Ford Motor Company.
The plaintiffs are represented by Wexler Boley & Elgersma LLP.