— A Mercedes-Benz class action lawsuit over shattered sunroofs will continue in court after Mercedes failed to convince a judge to dismiss the lawsuit.
According to the lawsuit, the panoramic sunroof suddenly exploded without being hit by any external force, making it a defective product.
The loud, shotgun-like noise distracted the driver, and they and their passengers found themselves covered in shards of glass.
The Mercedes-Benz sunroof class action lawsuit involves these vehicles.
Mercedes-Benz C-Class from 2011 to present
2014-Present Mercedes-Benz CLA-Class
2011-Present Mercedes-Benz E-Class
2011-Present Mercedes-Benz GL-Class
2011-Present Mercedes-Benz GLS-Class
2011-Present Mercedes-Benz GLK-Class
2011-Present Mercedes-Benz GLC-Class
2012-Present Mercedes-Benz M-Class
2012-Present Mercedes-Benz GLE-Class
2015-2017 Mercedes-Maybach S-600
2011-2012 Mercedes-Benz R-Class
2011-Present Mercedes-Benz S-Class
2011-2019 Mercedes-Benz SL-Class
2013-2020 Mercedes-Benz SLK-Class
2013-2020 Mercedes-Benz SLC-Class
The Mercedes sunroof allegedly shattered because the automaker used tempered glass instead of laminated glass. The plaintiffs said the tempering process caused damage to the outer layer.
The lawsuit also claims that thin glass makes the tempering process more difficult because “the compression layer is thinner, increasing the likelihood that the glass will become damaged and cause catastrophic failure.”
It is claimed that a small scratch or flaw in the manufacturing process could damage the compression layer and cause the sunroof to shatter.
In addition, the plaintiffs claimed that the panoramic sunroof was easily shattered due to the ceramic paint applied before the tempering process.
The ceramic enamel is said to have “severely weakened the structural strength and integrity of the tempered panoramic sunroof on vehicles in this category”.
The Mercedes dealer allegedly told the plaintiff that it would not replace the shattered sunroof free of charge, even though the sunroof had been shattered under normal driving conditions.
Motion to Dismiss Mercedes-Benz Sunroof Litigation
As with all class actions, Thomas W. Thrash, Jr., in ruling on the motion to dismiss, said, “The court must accept the facts as stated in the complaint and interpret them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.”
The judge said that during the defence phase the plaintiff had been “aided by his imagination”.
In its motion to dismiss, Mercedes argued that the plaintiffs lack standing to sue, that the class action lawsuit is little more than a “shotgun defense,” and that the plaintiffs allegedly failed to properly state any of their claims.
However, the judge disagreed with most of the automaker’s arguments.
Mercedes argued that the plaintiffs had no standing to bring claims for vehicle models or model years that did not belong to the plaintiffs.
But the plaintiffs insisted that the issue should be postponed until the class action certification stage, and the judge said he agreed with the plaintiffs.
As for proving that the panoramic sunroof is defective, the judge will not request relevant evidence before entering the investigation stage of the case.
In his 61-page opinion, Judge Thrash dismissed only a few counts against several plaintiffs.
A Mercedes-Benz sunroof shattered class action lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia: Natalie Bolling v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC et al..
The plaintiffs are represented by Irby Law LLC.
Leave a Reply Cancel reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.