IMS Class Action August 3rd Update. New Claim form Claims Posted
03-18-2013, 12:42 PM
#151
The following paragraph was pulled from the documents posted in the link above which explains the core issue of the lawsuit. Basically, the single row design experienced failures of 4 to 10%, where the dual row design has "far less than 1%"
"Discovery and investigation establishes that Porsche adopted a single row design for the IMS in 2001. The payment of warranty and goodwill claims of owners of Porsche vehicles with this design of the IMS (all Class Vehicles) spiked up to between 4% to 8% of all such Vehicles in the United States, and 4% to 10% of all Class Vehicles in California. Warranty claims for Porsche Boxster and 911 vehicles relating to IMS issues, which had different versions of the IMS, have uniformly involved claims of far less than 1 % of such vehicles. Indeed, to date, Porsche has spent over $20,000,000 reimbursing customers for the parts and labor necessary to repair vehicles experiencing engine damage or failure as a result of the defective IMS shaft. (This entails approximately 3,100 claims granted under warranty or good will.)"
The suit requires that if you suffered a IMSB failure prior to the date of settlement agreement you will have 90 days to file your claim once the settlement agreement is finalized.
The law firm for this matter seem to be pretty experienced in class actions. Interestingly, they have represented many strippers in class action suits against strip clubs in So Cal.
"Discovery and investigation establishes that Porsche adopted a single row design for the IMS in 2001. The payment of warranty and goodwill claims of owners of Porsche vehicles with this design of the IMS (all Class Vehicles) spiked up to between 4% to 8% of all such Vehicles in the United States, and 4% to 10% of all Class Vehicles in California. Warranty claims for Porsche Boxster and 911 vehicles relating to IMS issues, which had different versions of the IMS, have uniformly involved claims of far less than 1 % of such vehicles. Indeed, to date, Porsche has spent over $20,000,000 reimbursing customers for the parts and labor necessary to repair vehicles experiencing engine damage or failure as a result of the defective IMS shaft. (This entails approximately 3,100 claims granted under warranty or good will.)"
The suit requires that if you suffered a IMSB failure prior to the date of settlement agreement you will have 90 days to file your claim once the settlement agreement is finalized.
The law firm for this matter seem to be pretty experienced in class actions. Interestingly, they have represented many strippers in class action suits against strip clubs in So Cal.
I wonder why some dual row IMS owner VIN's were included?
It's interesting to see the numbers as one can possibly derive a ball park of the wholesale cost of these engines. 20,000,000 / 3100 claims = $6,451 for engine including labor on the avg. This is purely a wild guess but interesting nonetheless.
03-18-2013, 12:49 PM
#152
Thank you for that interpretation Cefalu.
I wonder why some dual row IMS owner VIN's were included?
It's interesting to see the numbers as one can possibly derive a ball park of the wholesale cost of these engines. 20,000,000 / 3100 claims = $6,451 for engine including labor on the avg. This is purely a wild guess but interesting nonetheless.
I wonder why some dual row IMS owner VIN's were included?
It's interesting to see the numbers as one can possibly derive a ball park of the wholesale cost of these engines. 20,000,000 / 3100 claims = $6,451 for engine including labor on the avg. This is purely a wild guess but interesting nonetheless.
03-18-2013, 12:53 PM
#153
At least a couple members chimed in on this thread stating their VIN was within the included ranges and they had dual row IMS when they electively changed it out to the retrofit.
It is entirely possible that these members bought their cars with another used engine installed in it already.
It would be nice if these members could post up their engine serial number to see if there any any discrepancies between the engine code and their particular year car.
It is entirely possible that these members bought their cars with another used engine installed in it already.
It would be nice if these members could post up their engine serial number to see if there any any discrepancies between the engine code and their particular year car.
03-18-2013, 01:01 PM
#154
At least a couple members chimed in on this thread stating their VIN was within the included ranges and they had dual row IMS when they electively changed it out to the retrofit.
It is entirely possible that these members bought their cars with another used engine installed in it already.
It would be nice if these members could post up their engine serial number to see if there any any discrepancies between the engine code and their particular year car.
It is entirely possible that these members bought their cars with another used engine installed in it already.
It would be nice if these members could post up their engine serial number to see if there any any discrepancies between the engine code and their particular year car.
Possibly the motors in question that were discovered to be dual row were swapped in after the single row failed.
03-18-2013, 01:04 PM
#155
The math looks right, if we take $20,000,000/ 3100 cases == $6451 per case. Not cheap.
I think the worse part is that if you bought the car not using the dealer, you get %25. I suspect a lot of the owners have done it this way. What is the reasoning behind that segmentation, given the manufacturing defect is the same no matter what?
I think the worse part is that if you bought the car not using the dealer, you get %25. I suspect a lot of the owners have done it this way. What is the reasoning behind that segmentation, given the manufacturing defect is the same no matter what?
03-18-2013, 01:10 PM
#156
Yes, most people who now own these cars bought them on the open market, not from the dealer. So any current owners, who in the future have a covered IMSB failure, are only going to get 25% of the actual cost to repair. And if the cost basis of an entire engine is $6,451, that sucks.
03-18-2013, 01:23 PM
#157
As they say, the devil is in the details.
For future IMSB failures, you are required to have the dealer make an inspection to verify the car has in fact experienced a qualified failure.
It's anybody's guess what the value of the repair will be of which Porsche decides you get 25% of.
For future IMSB failures, you are required to have the dealer make an inspection to verify the car has in fact experienced a qualified failure.
It's anybody's guess what the value of the repair will be of which Porsche decides you get 25% of.
03-18-2013, 01:30 PM
#158
A little more info lifted from the doc's:
"Investigation And Discovery
Plaintiffs conducted a pre-filing and post-filing investigation, including, but not limited to, retaining an expert consultant regarding IMS failures, review of technical service bulletins, review of publicly available information relating to the nature and extent of the IMS problem, and obtaining and reviewing over 4,000 pages of IMS related documents produced by PCNA. Plaintiffs have also reviewed the status of other lawsuits, including settlement thereof, communicated with class members, and monitored complaints on NHTSA. Plaintiffs also deposed Alan Butler in May of 2012 (regarding warranty and warranty claim data) and Steffan Reinert (concerning the technical aspects of the IMS problems) in July of 2012."
Alan Butler
Manager, Warranty at Porsche Cars North America, Inc.
Greater Atlanta Area Automotive
Previous
Porsche Cars North America, Inc.
Reading Alan Butlers and Steffan Reinerts depositions would be VERY interesting!
"Investigation And Discovery
Plaintiffs conducted a pre-filing and post-filing investigation, including, but not limited to, retaining an expert consultant regarding IMS failures, review of technical service bulletins, review of publicly available information relating to the nature and extent of the IMS problem, and obtaining and reviewing over 4,000 pages of IMS related documents produced by PCNA. Plaintiffs have also reviewed the status of other lawsuits, including settlement thereof, communicated with class members, and monitored complaints on NHTSA. Plaintiffs also deposed Alan Butler in May of 2012 (regarding warranty and warranty claim data) and Steffan Reinert (concerning the technical aspects of the IMS problems) in July of 2012."
Alan Butler
Manager, Warranty at Porsche Cars North America, Inc.
Greater Atlanta Area Automotive
Previous
Porsche Cars North America, Inc.
Reading Alan Butlers and Steffan Reinerts depositions would be VERY interesting!
03-18-2013, 01:34 PM
#159
incentive awards not to exceed$15,000.00 total for all Representative Class Plaintiff
03-18-2013, 01:37 PM
#160
No, that $15,000.00 was to be split 4 ways between the 4 class representatives. It looked to me like it was a reimbursement for attorneys fees of the original class action suit, that was dismissed.
03-18-2013, 01:40 PM
#161
03-18-2013, 01:44 PM
#162
There are 4 class representatives in this suit which represent the protected interests of the entire group of class members.
The class representatives claims are supposed to be representative of the included but unnamed class members.
The class representatives claims are supposed to be representative of the included but unnamed class members.
03-18-2013, 02:57 PM
#163
You just never know what you'll find in a search of court documents looking for Porsche related cases!!
United States Court of Appeals,
Eleventh Circuit.
Herbert WILLIAMS, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
Commissioner Richard F. ALLEN, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 07-11393.
Sept. 17, 2008.
A. The Crime and Its Investigation
On November 2, 1988, Officer Mark Harrell of the Jackson, Alabama police department observed a white Porsche stopped in the emergency lane on the McCorquodale Bridge, approximately 80 miles north of Mobile. Officer Harrell stopped to provide assistance. The driver, nineteen-year-old Herbert Williams, Jr., told Harrell that he thought the car was running out of gas or was “a lemon,” and asked the officer where a gas station was located. Officer Harrell followed Williams to a nearby station and became suspicious when he noticed a substance that appeared to be blood dripping from the vehicle's rear hatch. The officer also observed that Williams was having difficulty operating the vehicle because of its manual transmission.
Upon arriving at the gas station, Officer Harrell looked inside the Porsche and saw the blood-covered body of a white male lying in the back of the vehicle. Officer Harrell placed Williams in the back of his patrol car and returned to the Porsche, where he determined that the victim, later identified as Timothy Hasser, was deceased. Hasser had been shot in the head three times, and weights were tied to his ankles. After additional investigation, it was determined that Hasser was the owner of the Porsche. Officer Harrell read Williams his Miranda rights and placed him under arrest. Subsequently, Williams informed the police that a .38 caliber handgun containing his fingerprints was located under the front seat of the Porsche. This gun was later identified as the murder weapon.
United States Court of Appeals,
Eleventh Circuit.
Herbert WILLIAMS, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
Commissioner Richard F. ALLEN, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 07-11393.
Sept. 17, 2008.
A. The Crime and Its Investigation
On November 2, 1988, Officer Mark Harrell of the Jackson, Alabama police department observed a white Porsche stopped in the emergency lane on the McCorquodale Bridge, approximately 80 miles north of Mobile. Officer Harrell stopped to provide assistance. The driver, nineteen-year-old Herbert Williams, Jr., told Harrell that he thought the car was running out of gas or was “a lemon,” and asked the officer where a gas station was located. Officer Harrell followed Williams to a nearby station and became suspicious when he noticed a substance that appeared to be blood dripping from the vehicle's rear hatch. The officer also observed that Williams was having difficulty operating the vehicle because of its manual transmission.
Upon arriving at the gas station, Officer Harrell looked inside the Porsche and saw the blood-covered body of a white male lying in the back of the vehicle. Officer Harrell placed Williams in the back of his patrol car and returned to the Porsche, where he determined that the victim, later identified as Timothy Hasser, was deceased. Hasser had been shot in the head three times, and weights were tied to his ankles. After additional investigation, it was determined that Hasser was the owner of the Porsche. Officer Harrell read Williams his Miranda rights and placed him under arrest. Subsequently, Williams informed the police that a .38 caliber handgun containing his fingerprints was located under the front seat of the Porsche. This gun was later identified as the murder weapon.
03-18-2013, 03:14 PM
#164
Race Director
I too am a bit confused by this settlement. First of all, it doesn't appear that my VIN is included (WP0CA29974S650302) although I would appreciate any assistance in confirming this. That said, I am also not sure what it actually means if your VIN is not included, yet your car is pre-2005. Are they saying the problem is limited to a certain production run of bearings, because if so, from everything I have read, Porsche seemed to stick in whatever bearing they had on supply at the time of production. Additionally, for those of us who haven't had the IMS upgrade done yet, if our cars have known defective bearings, it seems silly to wait for an engine failure if Porsche has acknowledged the bearing is likely to fail. By only paying after the bearing has failed, it almost seems that Porsche is waiting us out with a problem they know exists, hoping we get to 10 years or 100k miles first.
Reading when they went to the single row design and working with GMP's and ISO-9000 standards.
The following paragraph was pulled from the documents posted in the link above which explains the core issue of the lawsuit. Basically, the single row design experienced failures of 4 to 10%, where the dual row design has "far less than 1%"
"Discovery and investigation establishes that Porsche adopted a single row design for the IMS in 2001. The payment of warranty and goodwill claims of owners of Porsche vehicles with this design of the IMS (all Class Vehicles) spiked up to between 4% to 8% of all such Vehicles in the United States, and 4% to 10% of all Class Vehicles in California. Warranty claims for Porsche Boxster and 911 vehicles relating to IMS issues, which had different versions of the IMS, have uniformly involved claims of far less than 1 % of such vehicles. Indeed, to date, Porsche has spent over $20,000,000 reimbursing customers for the parts and labor necessary to repair vehicles experiencing engine damage or failure as a result of the defective IMS shaft. (This entails approximately 3,100 claims granted under warranty or good will.)"
The suit requires that if you suffered a IMSB failure prior to the date of settlement agreement you will have 90 days to file your claim once the settlement agreement is finalized.
The law firm for this matter seem to be pretty experienced in class actions. Interestingly, they have represented many strippers in class action suits against strip clubs in So Cal.
"Discovery and investigation establishes that Porsche adopted a single row design for the IMS in 2001. The payment of warranty and goodwill claims of owners of Porsche vehicles with this design of the IMS (all Class Vehicles) spiked up to between 4% to 8% of all such Vehicles in the United States, and 4% to 10% of all Class Vehicles in California. Warranty claims for Porsche Boxster and 911 vehicles relating to IMS issues, which had different versions of the IMS, have uniformly involved claims of far less than 1 % of such vehicles. Indeed, to date, Porsche has spent over $20,000,000 reimbursing customers for the parts and labor necessary to repair vehicles experiencing engine damage or failure as a result of the defective IMS shaft. (This entails approximately 3,100 claims granted under warranty or good will.)"
The suit requires that if you suffered a IMSB failure prior to the date of settlement agreement you will have 90 days to file your claim once the settlement agreement is finalized.
The law firm for this matter seem to be pretty experienced in class actions. Interestingly, they have represented many strippers in class action suits against strip clubs in So Cal.
I think the discovery documents would indeed be fascinating, but dry, to read. I suspect that Steffan Reinerts , based on the Germanic name, is the Porsche engineer/manager who has the most knowledge of the problem.