GM owners claim bankruptcy fraud to keep recall suits alive

NEW YORK (Bloomberg) -- General Motors’ request for court protection from 50 car-owner lawsuits seeking compensation for millions of recalled autos with defective ignition switches was attacked as legally “unsupportable.”

Car owners challenged GM’s position that it may compensate accident victims but not them, claiming in a court filing on Tuesday that GM committed fraud by not revealing the defects, allegedly known since 2001, or listing either group as creditors in its 2009 bankruptcy.

In the reorganization, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Robert Gerber freed GM from most of its liabilities, leaving intact only some warranty obligations and responsibility for accidents. To stop Gerber from protecting GM from new suits, the ignition switch car owners must prove their fraud allegation, bankruptcy attorney Chip Bowles of Bingham Greenebaum Doll LLP said.

“This is very difficult,” Bowles said. “However there is a middle ground and that would be the parties requesting discovery,” or pre-trial evidence from GM, to prove fraud. “There is a decent chance that Gerber would allow discovery.”

GM, which has said it isn’t seeking to block lawsuits over accidents that caused injury, loss of life or property, told the judge he must rule on the issue before other ignition lawsuits against the company may proceed. A conference on GM’s request is set for May 2 in U.S Bankruptcy Court in Manhattan.

Kevin Kelly, a spokesman for GM, declined to comment on the filing.

Federal courts

The car owners have sued GM in federal courts in states including Texas and California, with one lawyer demanding as much as $10 billion to replace depreciated GM Cobalts and Ions. The automaker’s move to block those suits, and future claims, has brought GM back to the courthouse where it filed for bankruptcy, and turned the matter into a creditor fight.

Lawsuits against GM have been stopped by judges in California and Texas to await a possible ruling by Gerber.

GM has asked Gerber to reaffirm his 2009 order and block demands for compensation for economic losses, including declining value and loss of use or wages for time spent getting cars repaired. If he does so, it would send car owners back to the drawing board to see if they have any remaining claims that aren’t barred by law.

Gerber reaffirmed his GM rulings once before, telling plaintiffs in 2010 that GM wasn’t liable for its predecessor’s “implied” or stated warranties for Saturn cars. They could file a “far less valuable claim” against the old GM, which has limited assets, he said at a hearing.

Hid problems

In support of allegations that old GM hid the ignition switch problems from the judge, the car owners alleged the automaker was aware of mounting injuries and deaths before, and during, the 2009 bankruptcy.

That year, GM did its own investigation of faulty ignition switches that caused airbags to malfunction, taking no action, the car owners alleged. They accused GM of continuing the concealment, hurting customers and creditors.

The car owners also cited an internal 2007 e-mail from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration about a potential probe of faulty airbags in GM Cobalts and Ions.

While GM responded that it didn’t see a pattern of problems, NHTSA’s Greg Magno wrote in the e-mail that the safety administration “perceives a pattern of non-deployment in these vehicles that does not exist in their peers.”

If they had worked, they would have reduced injuries and saved lives, he wrote in the e-mail cited in the filing.



ATTENTION COMMENTERS: Over the last few months, Automotive News has monitored a significant increase in the number of personal attacks and abusive comments on our site. We encourage our readers to voice their opinions and argue their points. We expect disagreement. We do not expect our readers to turn on each other. We will be aggressively deleting all comments that personally attack another poster, or an article author, even if the comment is otherwise a well-argued observation. If we see repeated behavior, we will ban the commenter. Please help us maintain a civil level of discourse.

Email Newsletters
  • General newsletters
  • (Weekdays)
  • (Mondays)
  • (As needed)
  • Video newscasts
  • (Weekdays)
  • (Weekdays)
  • (Saturdays)
  • Special interest newsletters
  • (Thursdays)
  • (Tuesdays)
  • (Monthly)
  • (Monthly)
  • (Wednesdays)
  • (Bimonthly)
  • Special reports
  • (As needed)
  • (As needed)
  • Communication preferences