— General Motors argues an engine class action lawsuit should be dismissed because all the vehicles were already recalled.
The GM L87 engine lawsuit includes these vehicles.
- 2019-2024 Chevrolet Silverado 1500
- 2021-2024 Chevrolet Tahoe
- 2021-2024 Chevrolet Suburban
- 2019-2024 GMC Sierra 1500
- 2021-2024 GMC Yukon
- 2021-2024 GMC Yukon XL
- 2021-2024 Cadillac Escalade
- 2021-2024 Cadillac Escalade ESV
The plaintiffs are 44 current and former owners of GM trucks and SUVs with 6.2-Liter V8 EcoTec3 L87 engines. The class action says the L87 engines in about 600,000 vehicles have a “defective design that causes insufficient lubrication between the bearings and the crankshaft.”
The lawsuit says this causes increased friction and heat that “cause[s] the component materials to wear.” This wear purportedly causes “spun bearings” that can lead to broken connecting rods, loss of propulsion and engine failures.
GM’s engineers found “two primary root causes” of L87 engine problems, both “attributable to supplier manufacturing and quality issues” in different engine components by different third-party suppliers.
The automaker said the L87 engines could suffer from rod bearing damage from sediment on connecting rods and crankshaft oil galleries. The L87 engine problems are also caused by out of specification crankshaft dimensions and surface finish.
General Motors told the judge the engine problems were caused by suppliers and only about 3% of the engines were defective. GM argues this proves the engine problems are not design defects as alleged in the class action lawsuit. If it was an engine design defect all the L87 engines would be defective.
In April 2025 General Motors recalled about 600,000 vehicles for engine problems. The automaker notes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration approved the recall repairs which had GM dealers replacing the engines for free in vehicles that did not pass an L87 engine inspection.
For any vehicle that did pass the inspection, a dealer changed the oil to a higher viscosity oil and installed a new oil fill cap and oil filter.
All the recalled vehicles also received an extended engine warranty for 10 years/150,000 miles, and owners had the option to purchase higher viscosity “0W-40” oil at a price comparable to traditional “0W-20” oil.
At least 11 class action lawsuits were filed over the L87 engines, but the first GM engine lawsuit wasn't filed until after federal safety regulators opened a formal engine failure investigation in January 2025.
That investigation was closed in October 2025, but NHTSA opened another investigation to determine if the engine recall included all the affected vehicles.
Then in January 2026, NHTSA also announced a recall query to evaluate reports of subsequent engine problems in vehicles subject to the original recall.
Motion to Dismiss the GM Engine Lawsuit
The plaintiffs’ claims are allegedly not viable and should be dismissed because GM recalled hundreds of thousands of vehicles to repair them for free. And all those customers also received the engine warranty extensions.
GM asserts without facts showing they personally experienced a defect, the plaintiffs "cannot rely on conclusory allegations or injuries allegedly suffered by other plaintiffs or absent class members."
According to General Motors, "the doctrines of prudential mootness and primary jurisdiction warrant dismissal because GM’s NHTSA-supervised recall remedies the alleged engine defect." And while the plaintiffs complain the recall isn't good enough, GM argues the plaintiffs should ask NHTSA about the L87 engine recall and free repairs.
GM also argues express warranty claims fail because the plaintiffs do not claim GM ever denied them warranty repairs. Implied warranty claims also allegedly fail because any breach is limited by the terms of the vehicle warranty.
The GM engine lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan: Powell et al., v. General Motors, LLC, Case No. 4:25-cv-10479-SDK-KGA.
The plaintiffs are represented by The Miller Law Firm PC, DiCello Levitt LLP, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, and Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP.