Skip to Main Content

Volkswagen Timing Chain I

CASE CAPTION: In re Volkswagen Timing Chain Product Liability Litigation (Volkswagen Timing Chain I)

COURT: United States District Court, District of New Jersey

CASE NUMBER: 16-cv-2765

JUDGE: Honorable Jose Linares

PLAINTIFF: Lloyd Artola, Dawn Stanton Blanchard, Katrina Calihan, Hamza Deib, Umar Ellahie, Angel Esquijarosa, Allison Fleck, William Fleck, Allan Gaudet, Zachariah Gossman, Jason Hosier, Demetrie Hylick, Garrett Johnson, Pamela K. Kane, Hannah LeMoine, Shimelesse Mekbeb, Neel Mody, Karl Molwitz, Anoushirvan Nadiri, Suzanne Noyes, Debra J. Oles, Jeffrey Pipe, Jennifer Piumarta, John Schaffranek, Erika Sensnovis, Robby Smith, Michael Spencer, Dena Stockalper, William R. Swihart, David Zhao, Bartosz Zielezinski, and David Zimand

DEFENDANTS: Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Volkswagen AG, and Audi AG

CLASS VEHICLES: Certain 2008-2012 model year Audi A3, 2009-2012 model year A4 (Avant and Sedan), 2010-2013 model year A5 (Cabriolet and Coupe), 2012 model year A6, 2011-2012 model year Q5, 2009-2012 model year TT (Coupe and Roadster) and Volkswagen 2012-2014 model year Beetle, 2009-2012 model year CC, 2009-2012 model year CC, 2009-2012 model year Eos, 2008-2012 model year GTI, 2008-2010 model year Jetta Sedan and 2012-2014 model yar Jetta Sedan vehicles with an EA888 engine

In this automotive defect class action, Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants knew that the Timing Chain System installed in the Class Vehicles is defective and likely to fail catastrophically well before any service or maintenance should even be necessary, which put consumers’ safety at risk and exposed them to significant monetary losses. This action began on May 16, 2016 and was subsequently consolidated with five other later-filed actions alleging substantially similar facts and causes of action. The Consolidated Class Action Complaint asserted thirty-four (34) counts on behalf of nationwide classes and state subclasses for fraud, breach of contract, breach of express and implied warranties, negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act as well as certain state consumer protection statutes. On May 8, 2017 the Court denied Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, issuing a ruling upholding substantially all of Plaintiffs’ claims.

After the Parties had an opportunity to consider the Court’s ruling, and began responding to discovery, the Parties began discussing settlement. After vigorous negotiations, in late April 2018 the Parties agreed upon the terms and conditions of a settlement which provided significant relief to the Class. Specifically, for Class Members who had repairs to the Timing Chain System performed by an authorized dealer, they received reimbursement of 100% of the dealer repair costs paid. For repairs to the engine caused by the failure of the Timing Chain System, Defendants also reimbursed up to 100% of the amount paid to authorized dealers, depending upon mileage and time in-service of the vehicle. Likewise, for repairs conducted by an independent service station, Defendants reimbursed up to $6,500 for engine repair, and up to $2,000 for repairs to the Timing Chain System or certain components. Additionally, for those Class Members who had not yet had a Timing Chain System failure, Defendants extended the warranties on those vehicles to cover Timing Chain System failures for up to one hundred thousand (100,000) miles/10 years from the In-Service Date. This was an outstanding recovery which provided real, significant relief to Class Members who had unknowingly purchased defective vehicles.

On March 18, 2019, the settlement became final and all settlement proceeds have now been distributed.