Nissan loses appeal in sunroof crushing class action lawsuit

December 1, 2024 — A Nissan sunroof class action lawsuit that has been in court since 2017 will continue after Nissan lost an appeal to the Ninth Circuit.

The Nissan sunroof explosion lawsuit covers these vehicles.

• 2009-2014 and 2016-2020 Nissan Maxima

• 2014-2020 Nissan Rogue

• 2013-2020 Nissan Pathfinder

• 2009-2020 Nissan Loulan

• 2013 Infiniti JX35

• 2014-2020 Infiniti QX60

The original class action lawsuit included all affected Nissan owners nationwide, which makes sense because if the sunroofs are defective, they’re likely to be defective everywhere.

But like many auto class action lawsuits, this one has yet to be certified nationwide and instead only targets certain customers in these four states: California, Colorado, New York and Florida.

Nissan sunroof glass allegedly shatters like a shotgun when driving or parking. Passengers in the Nissan complained of extreme distraction caused by the sunroof exploding while driving. In addition, vehicle owners reported that shards of glass falling from the roof put vehicle occupants at risk.

According to the Nissan class action lawsuit, Nissan’s warranty generally does not cover glass damage, and the plaintiffs claim it could cost $1,000 to repair or replace a shattered sunroof.

However, Nissan said research showed less than one in two sunroofs across all its models were broken.

Nissan Sunroof Class Action Lawsuit Appeal

Nissan appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit after a district court granted class action certification on state law claims in California, Colorado, New York and Florida.

Nissan argued there was no admissible evidence that the alleged common design flaw would increase the likelihood of the sunroof spontaneously breaking.

Most consumers likely believe that proof of a defect is needed to move a lawsuit forward in court, especially before a judge allows thousands of vehicle owners to file lawsuits.

But the appeals court said “evidence of a defect is not required to establish class certification.”

The appeals court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding several common questions of law and fact.

The district court cited the “nature of the alleged defect,” “Nissan’s knowledge (or lack thereof) of the alleged defect,” “whether a reasonable consumer would have discovered the omission of defective material,” and “whether the vehicle breached the implied warranty.” merchantability” and “the extent to which Nissan’s failure to disclose information constitutes concealment.”

Nissan also argued that the district court erred in the class action finding that the “vast majority” of class members “never had, and never will have, a broken (panoramic sunroof).”

However, the Ninth Circuit said that even if that were true, the plaintiffs claimed that all Nissan owners paid more for panoramic sunroofs when they purchased their vehicles because Nissan failed to warn them of the alleged sunroof defect that affected all vehicles.

Nissan also said the named plaintiff should not represent owners of Nissan models it does not own. However, the Ninth Circuit disagreed.

Nissan sunroof class action lawsuit certification to remain in four states.

The Nissan sunroof explosion lawsuit was filed by these customers.

• Sherida Johnson – California

• Linda Spry — Colorado

• Lisa Sullivan—Florida

• April Ahrens — Illinois

• Chad Lowry — California

• Subrina Seenarain — New York

A Nissan sunroof explosion lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California: Sherida Johnson et al v. Nissan North America, Inc.

The plaintiffs are represented by Simmons Hanly Conroy LLC and Greg Coleman Law PC.