GM Inside News Forum banner

General Motors protected from ignition switch lawsuits

2K views 17 replies 15 participants last post by  doh 
#1 ·
BBC NEWS
4 hours ago

From the section Business
A judge has ruled that General Motors is protected from dozens of lawsuits over faulty ignitions switches as a result of its 2009 bankruptcy filing.

GM has admitted it failed to alert regulators and issue a timely recall of cars that had faulty ignition switches which could cause a vehicle to accelerate.

The switches were linked to 160 injuries and 84 deaths.

GM filed for bankruptcy in 2009 during the height of the financial crisis.

Those filing the lawsuits against GM had argued that the firm violated their rights when it failed to disclose the defect.

However, GM said it was protected from those suits that were related to vehicles manufactured before it exited bankruptcy in 2009.

US bankruptcy judge Robert Gerber agreed with GM, and said that the lawsuits would have to be filed against "old GM", which is essentially the shell company GM set up as part of its bankruptcy proceedings which contains all of the company's bad assets.

GM was forced to recall nearly 2.6 million vehicles as a result of the defect, and set up a claims facility to compensate victims who could prove they suffered harm as a result of the defect.

However, those suing GM were generally those who were not compensated as a result of that fund or who alleged a loss of value in their vehicle as a result of the defects.

The total cost to GM as a result of the switch problems is estimated to be nearly $400m. One plaintiff's lawyer estimated the suits, if allowed to proceed, could have cost GM billions of dollars.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-32329496
 
See less See more
#5 ·
Yeah, I don't get why this even means anything; people were encouraged to come forward; GM has approved millions of dollars in claims.

I guess the one thing it does do, if you were not awarded a settlement, you can't attempt to sue "New GM".


The law is,the law
You are correct, glad to see you are sticking-up for the little guy, verse the big evil corporation................

The problem with "The law is the law" is if what you do is deemed so egregious, and you lose your customer base, the only law you'll ever need to worry about again is Bankruptcy Law...........

GM knows this, and that is why GM has done what its done over the last year.
 
#4 · (Edited)
Glad to see it's all behind them now at GM, Mary Barra inherited a pile of crap to deal with, hopefully that's it now at long last she can devote more time get on with running General Motors now.

It good to see a lotta good has now come from the recalls after putting in some long time in court & facilitating a new excellent reporting system for flaging up incidents in the future a lot faster, nice to see GM reacting instantly to problems as soon as they found today. Hopefully GM as learned a tough lesson and will be stronger better for it in the future.
 
#7 ·
OK, so if some of you believe "new" GM is responsible, then what in the name of anything is Bankruptcy for?

Sorry, the company split, and since 2009, they are a new GM. They have already gone above and beyond on this, and even further with all the recalls last year.

My car was in the ignition recall. I didn't ask for one red cent beyond fixing the problem, which they did with an in and out 15 minute service appointment.

This judge is correct.
 
#10 ·
Did anyone say the judge was wrong? We all know, GM being a "socially responsible" company of the community, strictly following the law, verses "manning-up" might actually cost them more, in the end. (which is why GM is approving and paying out millions of claims)

And the reason it was questioned whether "New GM" was responsible for something "Old GM" did, is the simple fact, that is all part of Bankruptcy process (or should have been); presenting all assets and all liabilities.

I question what GM did or didn't know, (and when) but lets say just for arguments sake, during the did bring it up to the Bankruptcy Judge, "yeah we really screwed-up, allowed an inferior switch to be used for years, despite knowing from the beginning it was out of spec, and Oh yeah, a lot of people probably died because of it".............

Not only would the Bankruptcy been bogged-down (to understand the size and scope of the issue) which is why I think they knew, significant money would have been set aside for damages.
 
#9 ·
This is riduclous if you have a keychain with over 2lbs of useless crap on it Darwin will take you out. I mean C'mon the key-chains were built to a specification and out of the millions of vehicles sold less than 200 have had this issue. so in essence 200/2,000,000 + 0.0001 % or in other words 1 ten-thousandth of owners.
 
#12 ·
Every time I consider going back to GM after 16 years with Hondas, I see stuff like this and it makes me reconsider.

New GM would go a very long way toward regaining lost customers if they settled lawsuits with every single customer who ever owned a car wit one of these dangerous ignition switches.
 
#17 · (Edited)
What a load of bad info.

This is the right decision. No GM isn't shirking anything. I have absolutely zero pity for the lying shysters that came out from under their rocks to try and file phony diminished value suits. Forget all the lies that have been fed to you. That is all this outrage is about. Lying slime like Bob Hilliard tried to take a cut on the phony premise that owners lost money so has been spreading lies to you just so he can try to take his cut.

And with all that, GM still without having to paid people because they wrecked their cars and there might be a connection to an ignition switch incident. They don't have to go into court to collect.

So what is the complaint here? Slimy lawyers can't cash in for more? Too fricking bad.

Oh, by the way, Toyota is still fighting their gas pedal defect on a case by case basis. No consideration to avoid courtroom settings for people they may have killed. Tanaka won't admit they even have a problem with their product.
 
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