— A Dodge Durango taillight class action lawsuit will continue in court after Chrysler failed to convince a judge to dismiss the case.
Two owners who filed the lawsuit claim that the taillights on 2014-2023 Durangos are defective because water leaks through gaskets and seals on the tailgate.
According to the class action lawsuit, the water damaged the taillights, backup lights and backup camera system.
Fiat Chrysler allegedly knew about the taillight and tailgate issues since 2020 but continued to hide the dangers from consumers. Additionally, FCA has not yet recalled Dodge Durangos, and the lawsuit claims that FCA will not pay for repairs once the warranty expires.
Dodge Durango Tail Light Class Action Lawsuit – Plaintiff
California plaintiff Brian Jenkins purchased a used 2019 Dodge Durango in March 2020. In January 2023, Jenkins noticed water was entering the taillights of his Durango, but he was told the repair would cost $1,300 and he would have to pay for it out of pocket.
California plaintiff Matthew Brookshier purchased a used 2021 Dodge Durango in 2024. Prior to that, he had purchased a 2017 Dodge Durango that also had taillight problems.
He claimed that “a major factor in[his]decision” to purchase the 2021 Durango was his belief that the car had been redesigned to address the taillight issues. But in March 2024, Brookshire noticed water was entering his Durango’s taillight and was told the necessary repairs were not covered.
Motion to Dismiss Dodge Durango Tail Light Lawsuit
Judge Jeffrey S. White said he must accept the allegations in the class action lawsuit as “true and construed in a manner most favorable to the plaintiffs.”
FCA held that Brookshier’s claim for breach of express warranty failed because he did not allege that he sought repairs before the warranty’s “applicable time or mileage period…had elapsed.”
But the plaintiff claimed that a “factory 3-year, 36,000-mile limited warranty…came standard on (his) vehicle,” but he did not provide any other information about the warranty.
The judge said he was not dismissing the warranty claim because he had to side with the plaintiffs over Chrysler.
“Reading the allegations in the light most favorable to Brookshier, it is reasonable to infer from the statements that ‘despite’ the warranty and from the model date of his Durango, he sought repairs before the warranty expired.” — Judge White
The plaintiffs also claimed that Chrysler should have warned them about the alleged taillight issues through window stickers and advertising, and the judge said that because he had to accept the truth of the allegations, the court “concluded that the allegations were sufficient.”
Additionally, the judge ruled at this stage in the Durango class action lawsuit that the plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged that FCA had a duty to warn owners of “unreasonable safety risks” due to water and sealing issues.
The judge also analyzed an allegation of negligent misrepresentation but found that the plaintiff needed to provide more information about his allegation.
CarComplaints.com will update our website as more information is released regarding the Dodge Durango lawsuit.
The Dodge Durango taillight class action lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California: Jenkins et al v. FCA US LLC.
The plaintiffs are represented by Nye Stirling Hale & Miller, LLP and Cafferty Clobes Meriwether & Sprengel LLP.
Leave a Reply Cancel reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.