Ram air suspension class action lawsuit dismissed

July 15, 2024 — Ram air suspension class action lawsuit dismissed because truck owners waited too long.

In January 2017, New Jersey plaintiff Daniel Paolucci purchased a 2017 RAM 1500 Rebel equipped with an air suspension system.

Paolucci said the problems with the air suspension system began in October 2021, beginning with “occasional, gradual failures” of the truck’s suspension.

He claims the air suspension system failed again in December 2021, so the plaintiff took his Ram truck to a dealer but was allegedly told a final diagnosis would take at least two weeks.

According to the Ram class action lawsuit, despite the plaintiffs’ numerous attempts to reset the air suspension, by January 2022, the air suspension simply wasn’t working.

The plaintiff claimed the dealer told him it would cost $3,725 to repair the air suspension.

“The technician explained that the defect was likely caused by a known issue with the air suspension system, in which moisture seeped into the system, froze, and caused damage to internal components. Plaintiff was informed that his vehicle was unsafe to drive in cold weather and that a complete replacement of the air suspension system constituted ‘scheduled maintenance’ for the vehicle.” — Ram Air Suspension Class Action Lawsuit

The plaintiff said he contacted FCA customer service “to request a good faith replacement of his vehicle,” but his request was denied in January 2022.

The Ram class action lawsuit states that the plaintiff paid $2,898 to have the “air suspension system completely removed from his vehicle and replaced with an alternative suspension system.”

Ram air suspension class action lawsuit dismissed

Chrysler filed a motion to dismiss, seeking to dismiss the case, arguing that the breach of implied warranty claim must be dismissed because the plaintiff had driven the truck for nearly five years and tens of thousands of miles before the air suspension problem arose.

The judge noted that the plaintiff said he purchased the Ram truck in January 2017 and first experienced suspension problems in October 2021, more than four years ago.

However, the express warranty covers certain repairs “for a period of 36 months from the warranty start date or 36,000 miles shown on the odometer, whichever comes first.”

The warranty period expired 22 months before the Ram trucks allegedly had air suspension problems.

The plaintiffs argued that the statute of limitations was suspended because FCA knew about the alleged air suspension problem, while the plaintiffs did not know about it until the problem occurred.

Additionally, the plaintiff argued that his truck lacked merchantability “as a matter of law” because the latent defect caused the suspension system to fail, rendering his Ram truck unfit for ordinary driving.

Judge Zahid Nisar Quraishi ruled that the timeline of events precluded the plaintiffs from pursuing a breach of implied warranty claim because the alleged air suspension defect did not arise until long after the plaintiffs’ Ram trucks’ express warranty expired.

“These facts do not provide a convincing basis that plaintiff’s vehicle was ‘unfit for its ordinary purpose,’ and in any event such a basis could not have been raised after the expiration of the applicable warranty period.” Judge Qurayshi

Although the plaintiffs argued that the limited warranty was “unreasonable,” the judge disagreed, saying the class action lawsuit did not allege that FCA “manipulated the warranty terms to make them unreasonable or that defendants made any specific misrepresentations about the air suspension system despite ‘full knowledge’ of the system’s defects.”

Chrysler also successfully persuaded a judge to dismiss the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act lawsuit because there were fewer than 100 plaintiffs.

Although the judge dismissed the entire Ram air suspension class action lawsuit, the dismissal did not affect the plaintiffs’ claims, allowing them to amend (change and re-file) the lawsuit.

The Ram air suspension class action lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey: Daniel Paolucci v. FCA US LLC.

Plaintiffs are represented by McCune Law Offices, McCune Wright Arevalo Vercoski Kusel Weck Brandt, APC.