— Fiat Chrysler argues Chrysler Pacifica Hybrid battery recalls took care of any possible problems and a huge class action lawsuit should be tossed out of court.
Even Judge David M. Lawson calls the battery lawsuit a "massive pleading — 1,450-paragraphs spanning more than 430 pages."
According to the class action, defects in the high voltage lithium-ion batteries in 2017-2018 Chrysler Pacifica Hybrids can cause spontaneous fires when the battery enters “thermal runaway,” which is when heat is created faster than it can dissipate.
At least 11 Chrysler Pacifica Hybrid battery class action lawsuits were filed about 2017-2018 minivans, including Huntington v. FCA, Olsen v. FCA, and Gomez v. FCA.
All the lawsuits made identical or similar claims, leading the judge to consolidate the lawsuits into one class action titled, Chrysler Pacifica Fire Recall Products Liability Litigation.
A recall of the vehicles triggered the class actions which all claim the recall repairs weren't good enough. And even with the repairs, the hybrid minivans are supposedly worth less money due to the battery recalls which you can read here and here.
Motion to Dismiss the Chrysler Pacifica Hybrid Lawsuit
FCA told the judge most plaintiffs do not have any evidence to support their claims, some which were dismissed earlier.
Chrysler further told the judge the plaintiffs may act as though all the hybrid batteries are defective, the evidence and data show the opposite.
"Proving that Plaintiffs themselves have suffered an injury-in-fact from a defective battery (or representations or omissions about it) necessarily requires evidence that their batteries were actually defective. Here, just twenty-seven vehicles out of 16,741 in the subject population, i.e., 0.16%, experienced a fire." — FCA
The automaker determined the cause of the fires was torn or folded anode tabs in the batteries, but FCA estimates about 5% of the minivans have problems.
"As of November 30, 2023, the software identified some type of anomaly in 750 batteries, which were all replaced, and an actual defect was found in 34 of those batteries." — Chrysler
The initial recall repairs (Z11 software) was supposed to detect problems in the batteries but seven more battery fires were reported. So Chrysler created new software which became available in December 2024. And if problem is detected, a dealer will replace the battery for free.
FCA told the judge there are no known battery fires since the 73B repairs were performed.
In its motion, FCA argues the plaintiffs must show their Pacifica Hybrids have defective batteries, something most of the plaintiffs cannot do.
“It isn’t until the plaintiff’s own product manifests the defect that he is injured. Until that point, he has necessarily received the benefit of his bargain and has not overpaid.” — Chrysler
The automaker also says the lawsuit should be thrown out because even for four of the plaintiffs who did have battery problems, those batteries were replaced for free.
As for FCA allegedly knowing about the Pacifica Hybrid battery problems before the minivans were sold, Chrysler argues there is no evidence to support the allegations.
FCA says all the evidence shows the automaker "had no reason to even suspect the existence of the manufacturing anomaly giving rise to a risk of fire until late 2019, long after FCA US sold, and Plaintiffs purchased, their MY 2017 and 2018 vehicle."
Chrysler purportedly had no concrete evidence of a potential defect because it only knew the fires that had occurred up to that point were in “the area of the battery,” and engineers allegedly didn't know of any clear cause.
And FCA told the judge each claim must show a plaintiff was injured, yet except for three plaintiffs who experienced battery fires, all the claims fail "because no plaintiff can present any evidence that they were injured by any defect in their vehicles."
The Chrysler Pacifica Hybrid battery lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (Southern Division): IN RE: Chrysler Pacifica Fire Recall Products Liability Litigation.
The plaintiffs are represented by Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, The Miller Law Firm, P.C., Barrack, Rodos & Bacine, Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, LLP, and Casey Gerry Schenk Francavilla Blatt & Penfield LLP.