— A Honda VTC actuator noise lawsuit which went to trial resulted in a verdict in favor of certain Illinois Honda customers.
Both Honda and the plaintiffs appealed the verdict and a recent ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit left things right where they were.
The owners who appealed are two classes of Honda customers who claim Honda "injured" them by not telling them the variable timing control (VTC) actuators were defective when the vehicles were first sold.
Honda variable valve timing control (VTC) actuator 14310-R44-A01 causes engines to rattle a few seconds on cold starts of these vehicles.
- 2012 Honda Accord (L4 engine)
- 2012-2014 Honda CR-V (2.4-liter engine)
- 2012-2015 Honda Crosstour (L4 engine)
In 2012, Honda issued technical service bulletin (TSB) 09-010 to dealers regarding VTC actuator 14310-R44-A01:
TSB Title: "Engine Rattles at Cold Start-Up"
Symptom: At cold start-up, the engine rattles loudly for about 2 seconds.
Possible Causes: The variable valve timing control (VTC) actuator is defective.
Corrective Action: Replace the VTC actuator.
The district court certified two Illinois classes of vehicle owners: the Illinois "repair class" and the Illinois "new and used purchaser class" of owners.
The difference?
Members of the Illinois repair class purchased vehicles which contained the alleged VTC actuator defect, the defect occurred and they paid out-of-pocket to have the VTC actuator repaired.
Members of the new and used purchaser class bought cars that contained the alleged VTC actuator defect but didn't pay out-of-pocket to have it repaired.
The court also certified a third class of purchasers in California where the jury returned a verdict in favor of Honda on the claims for those owners. However, that verdict was not appealed.
The Honda lawsuit made it to a jury trial where certain Illinois owners would each receive $544. But both parties appealed various issues.
Honda VTC Actuator Noise Appeal
According to the Ninth Circuit, the district court was correct when it dismissed the Illinois new and used purchaser class's Illinois consumer fraud and deceptive business practices act claims. The district court ruled using repair costs to calculate damages "would provide a windfall to most members of the class."
Included in the appeal was the subject of one plaintiff and how she received nothing for being one of the owners who sued. The appeals court agreed with the district court judge who denied that plaintiff any award for representing Honda vehicle owners.
The Ninth Circuit also agreed with the district court finding that Honda was aware of the VTC actuator engine rattle through internal investigation and reports. The appeals court further agreed that the jury's verdict was correct when it found the Illinois Repair class vehicle owners were damaged by the VTC actuator problem.
The appeals court noted how the attorney fee award was more than 85% of the total damages award to customers, but the district court was correct in awarding the plaintiff's lawyers $1,207,072.88 for their fees. That amount was reduced from the fees requested by the lawyers.
The Honda VTC actuator noise lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California: Quackenbush, et al., v. American Honda Motor Company, Inc., et al.
The plaintiffs are represented by Greenstone Law APC, and Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP.