GM Vortec Engine Litigation: Motion to Arbitrate Denied

September 23, 2024 — The GM Vortec engine lawsuit is still ongoing four years after the class action was initially filed.

According to the GM Engine Litigation, 2011-2014 Chevrolet and GMC vehicles consumed too much gas, which is just one of many GM gas guzzling lawsuits filed in the U.S.

GM 5.3-liter engine litigation includes:

“All current and former owners or lessees of a class of vehicles (as defined herein) purchased or leased in the State of Ohio.”

The GM Engine Litigation includes vehicles manufactured on or after February 10, 2011 equipped with the fourth-generation 5.3-liter V8 Vortec 5300 LC9 engine:

• 2011-2014 Chevrolet Avalanche

• 2011-2014 Chevrolet Silverado

• 2011-2014 Chevrolet Suburban

• 2011-2014 Chevrolet Tahoe

• 2011-2014 GMC Sierra

• 2011-2014 GMC Yukon

• 2011-2014 GMC Yukon XL

Plaintiff Lisa Mae Jennings bought a new 2013 Chevrolet Silverado in 2013, but after driving the truck for three years and more than 40,000 miles, the check engine light came on and power dropped. The dealer replaced the damaged camshaft at no charge under warranty, the lawsuit states.

A few months later, the check engine light came on again and the dealer replaced the oil pressure switch. The warranty had expired, so the plaintiff paid for the repair.

The GM engine lawsuit states that seven years later (and at 92,000 miles) the truck had the check engine light come on again. This time the GM dealer replaced the AFM lifter.

How did GM respond?

“The truck did not require any other repairs, and Plaintiff never had her 2013 Silverado tested for oil consumption. There is no evidence that any repairs to her truck were related to the excessive oil consumption or the piston ring defect.” — General Motors

GM noted that the truck now had over 100,000 miles on it and was still running, and the plaintiff allegedly had no evidence that her truck was defective or required repairs due to worn piston rings or excessive oil consumption.

In other motions filed by GM, the automaker said the plaintiff agreed to resolve any disputes regarding her GM trucks through arbitration.

GM Engine Litigation—Motion to Compel Arbitration Denied

GM advocated for an order compelling arbitration because the plaintiffs in the GM Engine Litigation had signed a valid and binding arbitration agreement.

Judge Charles E. Fleming noted that many lawsuits had been filed before GM filed its motion to compel arbitration.

Example: GM filed an objection to class action certification, a motion to exclude opinions and testimony from plaintiffs’ experts, and several notices in response to plaintiffs.

The judge denied the motion for class certification in September 2023, but GM did not file a motion to compel arbitration until November 2023.

The judge said GM waited too long and only sought arbitration after filing too many other lawsuits and motions.

The judge cited previous similar cases in denying GM’s motion to compel.

“As with Schwebke, these actions and their associated timeline are inconsistent with reliance on any potential arbitration rights that Defendant may have. Defendant received the Arbitration Agreement in March 2022 and waited nearly two years (20 months) before seeking to compel arbitration. No explanation was offered for the delay. The Court finds that Defendant waived any right it may have to compel arbitration. Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration is Denied.” — Judge Charles E. Fleming

The GM Vortec engine litigation has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Ohio: Lisa Mae Jennings v. General Motors LLC.

The plaintiffs are represented by DiCello Levitt Gutzler LLC and Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles, PC