Complaint resolution service publishes case studies, recall information and consumer news.

California Attorney General Bill Lockyer today filed a lawsuit against leading U.S. and Japanese auto manufacturers, alleging their vehicles’ emissions have contributed significantly to global warming, harmed the resources, infrastructure and environmental health of California, and cost the state millions of dollars to address current and future effects.

“Global warming is causing significant harm to California’s environment, economy, agriculture and public health. The impacts are already costing millions of dollars and the price tag is increasing,” said Lockyer. “Vehicle emissions are the single most rapidly growing source of the carbon emissions contributing to global warming, yet the federal government and automakers have refused to act. It is time to hold these companies responsible for their contribution to this crisis.”

Filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, the complaint names as defendants: Chrysler Motors Corporation, General Motors Corporation, Ford Motor Company, Toyota Motor North America, Inc., Honda North America, and Nissan North America. The lawsuit is the first of its kind to seek to hold manufacturers liable for the damages caused by greenhouse gases that their products emit. Lockyer filed the lawsuit on behalf of the People of the State of California.

The complaint alleges that under federal and state common law the automakers have created a public nuisance by producing “millions of vehicles that collectively emit massive quantities of carbon dioxide,” a greenhouse gas that traps atmospheric heat and causes global warming. Under the law, a “public nuisance” is an unreasonable interference with a public right, or an action that interferes with or causes harm to life, health or property. The complaint asks the court to hold the defendants liable for damages, including future harm, caused by their ongoing, substantial contribution to the public nuisance of global warming.

As stated in the complaint, the automakers produce vehicles that emit a combined 289 million metric tons of carbon dioxide in the United States each year. Those emissions, the complaint alleges, currently account for nearly 20 percent of the carbon dioxide emissions in the United States and more than 30 percent in California. The defendants rank “among the world’s largest contributors to global warming and the adverse impacts on California,” according to the complaint.

“Global warming has already injured California, it environment, its economy, and the health and well-being of its citizens,” the complaint alleges. “California is responding to the ongoing impacts and the inevitable additional future impacts of global warming. The State is spending millions of dollars on planning, monitoring, and infrastructure changes to address a large spectrum of current and anticipated impacts, including reduced snow pack, coastal and beach erosion, increased ozone pollution, sea water intrusion into Delta drinking supplies, response to impacts on wildlife, including endangered species and fish, wildfire risks, and the long-term need to monitor on-going and inevitable impacts. California has already begun to address the decline in the snow pack and earlier melting of the snow pack in order to avert water shortages and flooding in the future.” Dealing with global warming’s harmful effects, the complaint adds, “will almost certainly cost millions more.”

The AG’s office did not comment on the impact of the suit on consumer prices for those automobiles.

Posted under Automotive

A new proposal to require auto manufacturers to install electronic stability control (ESC) as a standard feature on all new passenger vehicles has the potential to save more than 10,000 lives every year, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) announced yesterday.

If the rule passes, auto manufacturers must begin equipping passenger vehicles under 10,000 pounds with ESC starting with the 2009 model year and to have the feature available as standard equipment on all vehicles by the 2012 model year (September 2011).

ESC systems use automatic computer-controlled braking of individual wheels to help the driver maintain control in situations where a vehicle without ESC would skid out of control and likely leave the road. Nearly all rollover crashes occur after a vehicle leaves the road. A 2004 study by NHTSA estimated that ESC reduced fatalities in single-vehicle crashes by 30 percent for passenger cars and 63 percent for SUVs.

NHTSA Administrator Nicole Nason called electronic stability control for cars “the greatest life saving improvement since the safety belt.”

The agency estimates that ESC will save between 5,300 and 10,300 lives annually and prevent between 168,000 and 252,000 injuries. ESC will prevent between 4,200 and 5,400 of the more than 10,000 deaths that occur each year as a result of rollover crashes.

NHTSA estaimates the average cost per vehicle will be $111 on vehicles that already include ABS brakes.

Since 2004, NHTSA has urged manufacturers to voluntarily add ESC as standard equipment on vehicles. As a result, almost 29 percent of all 2006 models — 57 percent of SUVs - are already equipped with ESC.

Posted under Automotive, Safety

General Motors’ Chevrolet Silverado and GMC Sierra pickup trucks for model years 1999 and 2000 have been recalled. According to the manufacturer and supported by government documents, cables securing the truck’s tailgate can be corroded.

Approximately 900,000 vehicles are affected by this recall, which comes just days after the U.S.’ biggest automaker recalled 4 million vehicles from later years for the same reason.

Posted under Automotive, Recalls

A growing coalition of community and business groups and elected officials announced today the launch of the Illinois Used Car Buyers Right-to-Know Campaign, a major effort to protect Illinois used car buyers. Each year, more than 700,000 vehicles are involved in police-reported accidents on Illinois roads. The Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) collects an electronic record of these accidents and the damage the vehicles involved sustain, but this information is never disclosed to Illinois consumers.

The Used Car Buyers Right-to-Know Bill (SB 1839), sponsored by Senator James Meeks (D-15) and Senator Kirk Dillard (R-24), would require the IDOT to make police-reported auto accident history records available to consumers,without releasing personal information.

“People have a right to know all the facts before they buy a used car and this bill is an important step in providing that information,” said Attorney General Lisa Madigan. “We know that accidents can affect how a car runs and its safety. Access to the information provided by this bill will help consumers to make decisions based on facts, not hidden histories.” Joining Attorney General Madigan in support of the initiative are Secretary of State Jesse White and a bi-partisan group of state legislators.

“We all benefit from being informed. Undisclosed accidents put everyone at risk,” said Senator Meeks. “There is no reason Illinois should continue to shy away from this basic public safety issue. It’s really very simple. Let’s keep our families safe and pass this bill.”

Valuable information comes from police reports that record the damage from vehicle accidents. The reports may indicate, for example, if the airbag deployed, if the vehicle hit a deer, or if it was towed or driven away among other observations collected at the scene.

Armed with this information, along with mechanical inspections, consumers can protect themselves and make better decisions about the cars they purchase,something community leaders say is critical to people’s self-sufficiency.

“When low-income car buyers get ripped off, it has serious economic impact on their families,” said Nina Harris, President and CEO of the Springfield Urban League. “We have an opportunity to help prevent that from happening with this bill. It only makes sense that we should be able to find out if the carwe have saved long and hard for has hidden damage that could end up hurtingus. After all, information is power.”

Illinois voters overwhelmingly support the proposed bill. A recent statewide poll shows that more than 9 out of 10 Illinois voters believe used car buyers should have access to state reports on whether or not a car has been in an accident.

“Just as consumers wouldn’t want to unknowingly buy a flood damaged car from Hurricane Katrina, consumers need to know the accident history of used cars,” said Senator Dillard. “Often people find out too late what really happened in a car’s past. Dealers get taken at trade-in; unscrupulous sellers rip off consumers. It’s time for used car buyers and sellers to have access to police-reported accident information for their own peace of mind.

Added Juan Rangel, CEO of United Neighborhood Organization (UNO), “We shouldn’t be asked to settle for less when our family’s safety is at stake. After all, we depend on our cars to get us to work, to get our kids to school,and to run errands on a daily basis. There is no reason Illinois should continue to shy away from this basic safety issue.”

Posted under Automotive

A proposed roof crush rule – the first change in vehicle roof strength standards in more than three decades – is so grossly inadequate that 70 percent of existing vehicles already meet it. The proposed change would require vehicle roofs to be only marginally stronger than they are today.

The current standard requires a vehicle roof to withstand the force of 1.5 times the vehicle’s weight. Because of certain provisions in the proposed standard, the agency will effectively require a roof to withstand just 1.64 times the vehicle weight – a paltry improvement.

Rollover crashes kill 10,000 people each year, accounting for one-third of all occupant deaths in vehicle crashes. Many deaths and injuries that stem from rollover crashes occur when the roofs of vehicles crush in, killing or paralyzing the occupants of the vehicles. In many cases when the roof crushes, the windows of the vehicle crush or blow out, seat belt and side air bag systems fail, and doors spring open, causing people to be ejected and killed.

The current roof crush rule was issued in 1971. The agency originally called for testing both sides of the roof, but General Motors Corporation (GM) argued that testing both sides of the roof was unnecessary. Years later, it was revealed in litigation that GM had used NHTSA’s proposed two-sided test on six of its production model vehicles and that only one vehicle had passed. GM withheld its testing results from the agency but nevertheless argued for the one-sided test. NHTSA’s final rule called for testing just one side of the roof.

In 2000, after news of the Ford Explorer-Firestone tire rollover tragedies broke, NHTSA began mulling over a strengthening of the roof crush rule. But its proposed changes, released five years later, would do little to change the status quo. Even NHTSA says its proposed rule will save only 13 to 44 additional lives annually, an admission that the proposal is de minimus. Since 2000, 50,000 Americans have died in rollover crashes, making this one of the largest single causes of deaths in the new century. Today is the deadline NHTSA set to receive comments on its proposed rule. A copy of Public Citizen’s comments is available here.

“NHTSA is squandering an unprecedented opportunity to save lives by reducing rollover deaths,” said Public Citizen President Joan Claybrook. “This is an egregious betrayal of the public trust. It is technologically feasible and cost-effective to make vehicle roofs much, much stronger. The government has an obligation to require auto manufacturers to do so. It is unconscionable that the agency has punted.”

Internal auto industry documents in NHTSA’s possession show that auto manufacturers know the dynamics of rollover crashes and understand how, using feasible, light-weight and cost-effective technology, to make much stronger roofs. NHTSA should make these Volvo XC-90 documents public because they show how one small company led the way in rollover safety, Public Citizen said.

The proposed rule also contains a “pre-emption” provision that would prohibit people from suing manufacturers for injuries sustained from crushed roofs if the vehicles meet the government standard. This would effectively shut the courthouse doors on consumers and would remove incentives for manufacturers to make safe vehicles when minimal government standards are insufficient or outdated, or are not well enforced, Public Citizen argued. It also would burden the taxpayers with the costs of these crashes.

At a press conference today, the Rev. Lawrence Harris, a Pittsgrove, N.J., resident who is now a quadriplegic as a result of a rollover crash, denounced the new rule. The vehicle he was in when the 1997 crash occurred, a 1987 Ford Econoline van, would have passed the proposed new test. His injuries show how inadequate the proposed rule is.

“I have to live with the consequences of a government roof strength standard that is way too low,” Harris said. “It’s time for citizens like us to be heard and for the government to enact a law that forces auto manufacturers to build vehicles that are safer, stronger and will increase the chances of people walking away from an accident.”

NHTSA is proposing to increase the force that a vehicle’s roof must withstand in tests to 2.5 times the vehicle’s unloaded weight, up from the current 1.5 times. The increase is misleading, however, because NHTSA also has proposed changing the test requirements to allow greater roof intrusion. According to an analysis by Steve Batzer, a professional engineer and director of the Engineering Institute in Farmington, Ark., the average required increase in roof strength under the proposed rule amounts to requiring a roof to withstand just 1.64 times the vehicle weight, as measured by the current standard.

“This proposed standard does not meet the public’s expectation that solid science is used as the basis of new safety standards,” Batzer said. “Further, it does not ensure that the solid majority of average-height, belted occupants can be protected from significant roof crush in the event of a high-speed rollover.”

The agency contends that strengthening roofs will add weight to vehicles and increase the propensity for rollover, but this is a canard, Claybrook said. The agency has been unable to document that an increase in vehicle weight would increase the risk of rollovers. Further, manufacturers can strengthen roofs without adding weight, because many light-weight materials exist.

Other key problems with the proposed roof crush rule include:

It largely ignores the fact that a strong roof is crucial to preventing people from being ejected from vehicles that roll over. Including the benefits of preventing ejection would justify a much more stringent standard on a cost-benefit basis.
The new test does not apply force to the roof in a manner that ensures injuries would be prevented in a real-world crash. It continues to use a static test in which weight is pressed on one side of the roof. Instead, NHTSA should require a dynamic “dolly roll” test, in which vehicles are rolled off a fast-moving dolly, to simulate the injuries that occur in real-world crashes. This is the best way to test what happens in rollover crashes to a vehicle’s roof, windows, belt system, side air bags and occupants. The dolly test is already routinely used by auto manufacturers and is spelled out in FMVSS 208 (air bags, belts) as a voluntary standard since the 1970s.

The proposal fails to comply with an August 2005 congressional mandate for safety upgrades to both the driver and passenger sides that requires both sides of the roof be tested. Instead NHTSA calls for just one side to be tested. This measures what happens only in the first two quarter turns of a rollover. But the most serious injuries occur in the third and subsequent quarter turns.

The agency proposal relies on windshields to support roofs in rollovers, but in real world rollover crashes, windshields shatter, drastically reducing roof strength.

The cost-benefit analysis is riddled with errors.

The proposal lacks a scientific basis. The agency looks at vehicles after rollover crashes, analyzing roof intrusion, rather than analyzing what happens during a crash. Roofs are elastic and spring back, so analyzing post-crash intrusion is irrelevant to understanding how occupants are injured.

Posted under Automotive, Safety

Avery vs. State Farm is one of the most famous automotive lawsuits ever filed. The class action suit essentially claims that State Farm encouraged the use of third party “aftermarket” parts when repairing vehicles damaged in collisions.

After the plaintiffs won a stunning $1.2 billion verdict by claiming the parts were less safe than auto manufacturer’s official parts, the company and industry associations swung into action. On August 18, their hard work carried the day when the Illinois Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s decision. The Supreme Court not only found that the plaintiffs had failed to adequately show damages, but the Court also ruled 6-0 that the case should not have been certified as a class action.

The original $1.2 billion verdict was reduced once by a higher court after the initial verdict, but the reversal meant the end of a journey of more than six years for the participants. While some observers believe the case could signal the beginning of tort reform, consumer advocates were outraged.

“You can hold a typical aftermarket part in your hand and compare its weight and shape to the manufacturer’s original part,” said Consumer Help Web President Joan Bounacos. “The aftermarket part made by an independent third party is usually lighter and doesn’t fit as well. State Farm’s assertion that they have saved consumers money is moot if they have also agreed to put non-standard parts on the vehicle. I am hopeful that this case will again have its day in court and be heard on its merits.”

“Only one vote separated the key consumer issue from being a deadlock,” Bounacos said. “That is too close for future consumers to ignore.”

Posted under Customer Service

After President Bush signed a federal highway bill last month, New Yorkers began seeing a new benefit — auto leasing returning to their state.

Mercedes Benz was among the first of the auto manufacturers to annouce they would start leasing operations in New York again. That is because the highway bill bans vicarious liability, a law that holds a leasing company liable for a driver’s negligence.

“This antiquated law has hurt the retail auto industry, and we are pleased that Congress has put an end to it,” said Greater New York Auto Dealer Association President Mark Schienberg.

Schienberg’s organization estimated that vicarious liability had cost New York consumers $280 million in excess costs since 2003 because auto manufacturers were unwilling to assume responsibility for vehicles they are not required to assume in other states.

Posted under Automotive

In its annual consumer survey, advocacy company and publisher Consumer Reports announced that “Japanese and Korean automakers once again produced the most trouble-free vehicles overall”. The organization also noted that reliability for domestic cars and trucks improved, while reliability from European makes declined.

Overall, the survey of more than 800,000 consumers found that the 2004 Hyundai Sonata was the most reliable vehicle with only 2 incidents per 100 owners. Subaru led all brands with an average of 8 problems per 100 vehicles.

Surprisingly, luxury brands such as Lincoln and Mercedes Benz finished at or near the bottom with more than 20 incidents per 100 vehicles.

The full report is available in the April issue of Consumer Reports.

Posted under Automotive, Products