|
|
| |
| Sun, Nov. 23, 2008 |  |
 |
|
||
| |
Court OKs class-action status in suit against General Motors Friday, Jun 20, 2008 By John Lyon Arkansas News Bureau LITTLE ROCK - A lawsuit filed in Arkansas alleging General Motors sold 4 million vehicles with defectively designed parking brakes can proceed as a class-action suit, the state Supreme Court ruled Thursday. The state's highest court ruled Miller County Circuit Judge Jim Hudson did not err in granting class certification to Boyd Bryant, who is suing the automaker on behalf of himself and all others nationwide who purchased the allegedly defective vehicles. Bryant's suit alleges that between 1999 and 2002 GM sold pickups and sport utility vehicles with parking brakes whose linings did not adequately float inside the parking brake drums because of a defectively designed spring clip. Bryant claims GM discovered the defect in late 2000 and redesigned the spring clip in October 2001, but withheld from dealers its responsibility for the defect until January 2003, allowing the company to avoid paying millions of dollars in warranty claims. The suit accuses GM of fraudulent concealment, unjust enrichment and breach of express and implied warranties and seeks damages for repairs or reimbursement. Hudson ruled in January 2007 that Bryant had satisfied all of the requirements for class certification. GM argued on appeal that because product-defect laws vary from state to state, Hudson should have addressed the choice-of-law issue, or the issue of which jurisdiction's laws would apply in the case. In its opinion Thursday, the state Supreme Court said Hudson was right not to conduct a choice-of-law analysis at this stage in the case. "Were we to require the circuit court to conclude at this time precisely which law should be applied, such a decision could potentially stray into the merits of the action itself, which we have clearly stated shall not occur during the certification process," Justice Paul Danielson wrote for the court. GM also argued that because appropriate remedies will vary from person to person, the claims could best be addressed on a case-by-case basis. The Supreme Court disagreed, finding that although some issues involve variances of fact, a common issue - whether the brakes were defective and whether GM concealed any alleged defect - predominates. In a concurring opinion, Justices Annabelle Clinton Imber and Donald Corbin said they did not believe trial courts were prohibited from considering choice-of-law issues during the certification process, though they agreed that Hudson's ruling should be upheld. |
