GM Vortec oil consumption lawsuit dismissed

October 12, 2024 — A Colorado General Motors Vortec engine oil consumption lawsuit has been dismissed due to alleged defective piston rings in several popular models.

What began as a nationwide GM Vortec engine class action lawsuit ended up being a class action lawsuit against the following vehicles manufactured on or after February 10, 2011, equipped with the fourth-generation 5.3L V8 Vortec 5300 LC9 engine and sold in Colorado Buy or rent.

• 2011-2014 Chevrolet Avalanche

• 2011-2014 Chevrolet Silverado

• 2011-2014 Chevrolet Suburban

• 2011-2014 Chevrolet Tahoe

• 2011-2014 Jim Cicella

• 2011-2014 GMC Yukon

• 2011-2014 GMC Yukon XL

However, any vehicle that receives a free upgrade to its piston rings during the warranty period is excluded.

The lawsuit claims the vehicles have an “inherent . . . excessive oil consumption problem” allegedly caused by defective piston rings in the LC9 Vortec 5300 engines.

The plaintiffs allege that GM concealed its oil consumption issues from consumers since at least 2008.

Plaintiff Roy White owns a 2011 GMC Sierra equipped with a fourth-generation LC9 Vortec 5300 that allegedly had defective piston rings that caused excessive oil consumption.

The problem allegedly causes Vortec engine damage, but the plaintiffs claim GM denies there is a fuel consumption issue.

GM Vortec engine lawsuit dismissed

GM argued in its motion to dismiss that Vortec’s case should be dismissed because of Colorado’s three-year statute of limitations and Judge Charlotte N. Sweeney’s previous exclusion of the plaintiffs’ expert root cause opinions. Claim.

Plaintiffs contend that the statute of limitations should have been disregarded (terminated) because General Motors fraudulently concealed alleged oil consumption defects.

“Because there is a genuine factual dispute as to whether General Motors deceptively concealed alleged oil consumption defects, the court refuses to grant summary judgment on statute of limitations grounds.” — Judge Sweeney

GM made no headway on that argument, but did on the expert opinion that followed.

GM said that without expert testimony, the plaintiffs could not prove that an oil consumption problem existed or that oil consumption caused the alleged damages.

In Colorado, expert testimony is generally required to prove causation “when proof of causation requires answering technical questions beyond a layman’s ability to discern,” the judge said.

In this context, “lay persons” means members of the jury.

All the judge needed to dismiss the Vortec lawsuit was to rule without expert opinion and for jurors to answer technical questions beyond ordinary lay experience.

“The court finds that the issues here are at least as technical as other issues that the court has determined require expert testimony.” — Judge Sweeney

General Motors Vortec oil depletion lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado: Roy White v. General Motors LLC.

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