— A Land Rover LR2 class action lawsuit has been dismissed after allegations the infotainment control modules failed to shut down which drained the LR2 batteries.
The Land Rover lawsuit alleges even shutting off the vehicle doesn't shut off the infotainment control module. According to the plaintiffs, the LR2 battery will drain if the vehicle is parked overnight or for similar periods of non-use.
The Land Rover LR2 class action lawsuit says the automaker has known about the alleged electrical system defects since 2009 but refuses to properly repair the LR2 vehicles.
The plaintiffs reference a technical service bulletin (TSB LTB00391) issued to dealerships in 2011 about LR2 vehicles that suffered from drained batteries under certain conditions.
The bulletin talked about the infotainment control module not shutting down correctly once the ignition was shut off, but only if two conditions occurred.
According to the TSB, the LR2 driver must have been viewing the navigation system map while engaged in an active phone call through Bluetooth.
"If both of these conditions are encountered, a quiescent draw of approximately 1.5 amps on the battery may be induced, leading to the flat battery situation." — TSB LTB00391
Land Rover LR2 Class Action Lawsuit Dismissed
Plaintiffs Amy Block and Victorya Manakin were allowed to amend their class action three times as several claims were dismissed. But in a final motion to dismiss the lawsuit, Jaguar Land Rover argues the remaining claims should be dismissed after the plaintiffs allegedly failed to adequately plead their case.
According to Land Rover, plaintiff Manakin took her vehicle to a dealership for service within the warranty period. The invoice describes the reason for the visit: “CUSTOMER STATES VEHICLE HESITATES TO START INTERMITTENTLY, HAPPENED AFTER VEHICLE WAS RUNNING FOR ABOUT 15 MINS.”
The invoice also says that a battery test was performed and the battery passed the test, and the plaintiff wasn't charged for the visit.
Jaguar Land Rover argues Manakin has no evidence of a breach of the express warranty because her visit to the dealer was unrelated to the alleged defect causing the battery to fail.
According to Judge Stanley R. Chesler, Manakin clearly says the “problem” did not prevent her from starting the vehicle, but rather, “it was just not sounding normal.” Also, “it was a long crank.” Manakin also said she heard the abnormal sound “a few times before” and thought nothing of it.
"Plaintiffs do not even attempt to argue that a reasonable jury, hearing this testimony, would infer that the abnormal starting sound was caused by, or was a manifestation of, the alleged Defect. The undisputed evidence shows that the battery was tested and passed the test; Plaintiffs have offered no evidence of battery drain or a 'flat' battery, or a failure of the vehicle to start." — Judge Chesler
The judge says the plaintiffs have offered no evidence that while under warranty, Manakin’s vehicle manifested the alleged defect described in the technical service bulletin and therefore have offered no evidence to support finding a breach of the express warranty.
The judge also says Block's arguments for a breach of express warranty claim are similar. Land Rover argues Block has no evidence of a breach of the express warranty, but the plaintiff points to evidence that she brought the vehicle to a dealership during the warranty period.
The service invoice says: “C/S THAT AM RADIO DOES NOT WORK. CAUSE: TEST RADIO NO OUTPUT AM REPLACE HEAD UNIT. RADIO INTERNAL FAULURE [sic] CHECK OPERATION, NO OUTPUT FROM AM, ALL OTHER FUNCTIONS OK SWAPPED WITH KNOWN GOOD UNIT, FUNTIONALITY [sic] RETURNED.”
Block asserts the radio head is part of the infotainment control module, but the judge says there is no evidence for such a statement.
"No reasonable jury could infer from this evidence that this service visit involved failure to start the vehicle, a battery drain, a flat battery, the ICM [infotainment control module], or the alleged defect; there is no evidence to support any such inference." — Judge Chesler
In dismissing the Land Rover LR2 class action lawsuit, the judge ruled there is "no evidence in the record before this Court that could persuade a reasonable jury that either vehicle owned by Block or Manakin manifested the alleged Defect while under warranty."
The Land Rover LR2 class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey - Block, et al., v. Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC.
The plaintiff is represented by Nagel Rice, LLP.