— A Honda white paint lawsuit has been dismissed, but the judge says the owners who sued can modify and refile their class action if they want to take another shot at supporting their allegations.
The Acura and Honda white paint class action lawsuit includes these 2013-2025 vehicles:
- Acura MDX in White Diamond Pearl
- Honda Odyssey in White Diamond Pearl
- Honda Odyssey in Taffeta White
- Honda Pilot in Taffeta White
- Honda Fit in White Orchid Pearl
- Honda Fit in Bellanova White
- Honda HR-V in White Orchid Pearl
- Honda HR-V in Bellanova White
The white paint lawsuit was filed by plaintiffs Jim Clemmens, Terri Hernandez and Marie Toussaint.
In 2013, Toussaint purchased a new 2014 Acura MDX in White Diamond Pearl. In 2017, Hernandez leased a new 2017 Acura MDX in White Diamond Pearl and then purchased the vehicle in 2020. In 2019, Clemmens purchased a certified pre-owned 2016 Acura MDX in White Diamond Pearl.
In 2018, Toussaint noticed problems that caused the “white paint to inevitably fail, peel, delaminate . . . , bubble, and flake” in the area near the sunroof. A dealer agreed to repaint that area. But in 2024, the plaintiff saw peeling paint near the rear tailgate area of her vehicle, but this time Honda refused to pay for repairs.
In 2024, Clemmens and Hernandez also noticed paint problems and reported it to Acura dealerships which said the peeling paint wasn't covered by the warranties. The plaintiffs also contacted Acura customer service and was told any repairs would not be covered for free. Both plaintiffs contend the paint should have lasted well over 10 years.
According to the Honda white paint lawsuit:
“Honda made incomplete and false representations” and “failed to disclose that the latent Paint Defect was a virtual inevitability which would severely impact the Class Vehicles’ value, resale potential, and could result in costly repairs.”
Honda White Paint Lawsuit Dismissed
According to Judge Otis D. Wright, II, the plaintiffs must allege Honda had pre-sale knowledge of the peeling white paint problems to support claims premised on misrepresentations and omissions.
The class action lawsuit alleges Honda knew about the white paint problems before the vehicles were first sold but still chose to sell the vehicles. The lawsuit references a technical service bulletin from June 2019 that extended the warranty for White Diamond Pearl paint in 2014-2016 Acura MDX vehicles.
Honda issued two more TSBs in August 2019, relating to Taffeta White, White Orchid Pearl and Bellanova White paint on certain vehicles.
The class action also reference a 2008 TSB describing “a substantially similar paint peeling issue” in Dark Blue 2003-2005 Honda Odysseys. The plaintiffs also cite TSBs from 2012 to 2014 about “Hood Paint Cracking” and “Roof and Trunk Paint Chalking and Clouding” in Black, Blue, Gray, Metal, and Titanium 2006-2013 Honda Civics.
- TSB B19-029 — “Warranty Extension: White Diamond Pearl Paint” for 2014-2016 Acura MDX vehicles painted NH-603P White Diamond Pearl.
- TSB A19-055 — “Warranty Extension: Taffeta White Paint” for 2013 Honda Odysseys and 2014-2015 Honda Pilots.
- TSB A19-064 — “Warranty Extension: NH-788 White Orchid Pearl or Bellanova White Paint” for 2015-2017 Honda Fits and 2016-2018 Honda HR-Vs.
Honda's response is simple. The automaker contends the plaintiffs cannot rely on TSBs that do not concern the year/make/model vehicles owned by any of the plaintiffs.
However, the judge disagreed and said at the pleadings stage, “TSBs issued for other vehicles can support a plausible inference of knowledge when the other vehicles had the same defective component as the vehicle at issue.”
Before buying their vehicles, the three owners who sued contend they “viewed marketing materials that touted the quality, durability, and value of Honda’s vehicles,” including the purchased vehicles, and personnel at the dealers “emphasized the quality, durability, and aesthetic features” of the vehicles.
The plaintiffs claim Honda made misrepresentations about the vehicles, but the judge said the plaintiffs “do not identify the promotional materials on which [they] relied when purchasing their vehicles.”
According to the judge, nowhere in the white paint lawsuit do the plaintiffs allege they relied on these marketing materials, and the advertising materials do not even refer to the vehicles purchased by two plaintiffs.
Honda argues the white paint class action claims should not even exist because the plaintiffs failed to file the lawsuit within the applicable statute of limitations period.
But the plaintiffs assert the statute of limitations should be ignored because Honda allegedly concealed the white paint defects, and the judge agreed and ruled the limitations do not apply to two of the three plaintiffs.
The judge dismissed the white paint class action by finding any alleged problems with the white paint do not relate to the central role of transportation.
The lawsuit alleges “the quality of a vehicle’s exterior paint is integral to a vehicle’s use and function and safety by preventing rust and corrosion.” But according to the judge, the allegation is not plausible.
"Plaintiffs neither plead nor explain how 'rust' or 'corrosion' to the vehicle’s exterior relates to the central function. For example, Plaintiffs do not allege how these defects actually affect the performance of the vehicle, whether its efficiency, reliability, or otherwise. Nor have they alleged 'known serious and life threatening latent defects.'” — Judge Wright
Judge Wright found any peeling white paint is an "aesthetic one affecting the look of the vehicle’s exterior, not one related to the vehicle’s central function."
The Honda white paint lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California: Jim Clemmens, et al., v. American Honda Motor Company, Inc.
The plaintiffs are represented by Keller Fishback & Jackson LLP, and Squitieri & Fearon LLP.