— A class action lawsuit alleges a Ford Explorer rear axle bolt fracture recall is not good enough to repair the Explorers. But Ford has told the judge all of Ford's actions make the class action "prudentially moot."
A Ford Explorer rear axle bolt fracture recall was issued in April 2022 for these Explorers:
- 2020-2021 Ford Explorer Police Hybrid Electric
- 2020-2021 Ford Explorer Police 3.3L
- 2020-2022 Ford Explorer 2.3L RWD
- 2020-2022 Ford Explorer Plug-in Hybrid Electric 3.0L
- 2020-2022 Ford Explorer Hybrid Electric 3.0L
- 2020-2022 Ford Explorer ST3 3L
The automaker said the subframe bolt could fracture and cause the driveshaft to disconnect, causing a loss of torque to the rear wheels. Ford dealers were told to update the software so the Explorer automatically engages the electronic parking brake every time the vehicle is shifted into PARK.
Then in October 2023, another Ford Explorer rear axle bolt fracture recall was announced for dealerships to replace the Explorer subframe bushing and any cracked rear axle bolt. Those repairs were free under the recall, and Explorer owners who previously paid for axle bolt repairs could be reimbursed their expenses.
Ford also issued special service message (SSM) 50471 for 2020-2022 Explorers with broken rear axle mounting bolts. Dealers were told to replace the rear subframes, differential covers and any other damaged parts.
The class action alleges the Explorer subframes need two rear axle bolts, not one.
Certain Ford Explorers do use two rear axle bolts for the subframes because the vehicles have higher horsepower and torque ratings than the Explorers that were recalled.
In other words, the recalled Ford Explorers have lower horsepower and torque ratings and allegedly need only one rear axle bolt. And Ford says the plaintiffs never explain why the lower horsepower Explorers need two rear axle bolts.
Motion to Dismiss the Ford Explorer Rear Axle Bolt Lawsuit
Multiple Ford Explorer rear axle bolt class actions were filed, but Collier v. Ford, Caricofe v. Ford and Coolidge v. Ford were voluntarily dismissed. Some of those plaintiffs are included in this class action, titled Samuels v. Ford.
The Explorer axle bolt lawsuit includes 12 customers who claim the recalls are not adequate.
Ford begins by noting how 10 of the plaintiffs never had any problems with their Explorer subframes or axle bolts, but they still filed the class action lawsuit for more than $5 million.
Two of the 12 plaintiffs claim their Explorer rear axle bolts fractured, but the bolts were replaced for free by Ford.
There have been two free Explorer rear axle bolt fracture recalls, but Ford argues only some of the plaintiffs have taken advantage of the first free recall repairs, and none of the 12 plaintiffs say whether they have participated in the second axle bolt fracture recall.
Nevertheless, the plaintiffs say all 2020-present Ford Explorers are defective because they are equipped with one subframe rear axle bolt.
And even though 10 of the plaintiffs allegedly never had any axle bolt problems and the two plaintiffs who did have problems had their vehicles repaired for free, those 12 plaintiffs still assert claims for fraud, breach of express and implied warranty, and unjust enrichment.
According to Ford, the lawsuit should be dismissed due to the ongoing axle bolt recalls overseen by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. The plaintiffs allegedly do not have an "injury in fact," and there has supposedly been no breach of warranties because the two defective bolts were replaced for free.
In addition, the Ford Explorer warranty covers only manufacturing problems, but when the plaintiffs claim the subframes need two rear axle bolts instead of one, Ford says that is a "design" issue not covered by the warranty.
According to the class action, the plaintiffs contend they “fear for [their] safety” and have “lost confidence in the ability of [the vehicle] to provide safe and reliable transportation.” But Ford argues this is nonsense because of the recalls and other actions provided by Ford and overseen by federal safety regulators.
“In light of the availability of this remedy, . . . it is not clear how Plaintiffs have been injured.” — Ford's motion to dismiss
The plaintiffs assert their Explorers have lost value and they overpaid for their vehicles, but Ford argues the recalls erase those claims.
“Although Plaintiffs contend that they were injured by overpaying for their vehicles at the point of sale, they do not plausibly allege that such diminished value will persist after the defective [component part is] replaced by Ford.” — Ford
Ford says mere allegations that a recall is “ineffective” or “presents a safety concern” are not good enough without facts showing the vehicles experienced rear axle bolt fractures after the recalls.
"Put simply, Plaintiffs here have not plausibly alleged that the NHTSA-supervised recall is inadequate, only that they personally think a different approach should be taken. All of their claims should be dismissed as prudentially moot." — Ford
The Ford Explorer rear axle bolt fracture class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (Southern Division): Samuels et al., v. Ford Motor Company.
The plaintiffs are represented by The Miller Law Firm, P.C., Capstone Law APC, and Berger Montague PC.