IMS Class Action Lawsuit Settlement Reached
07-11-2013, 11:25 AM
#1
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IMS Class Action Lawsuit Settlement Reached
The IMS bearing class action lawsuit has come to a settlement. 
All details can be found at this webiste:
http://www.imsporschesettlement.com/
Good Luck!
All details can be found at this webiste:
http://www.imsporschesettlement.com/
Good Luck!
07-11-2013, 02:17 PM
#4
Instructor
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Oyster Bay, NY
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am no lawyer but I believe if your car failed before it was 10 years old or before it had 150k than you would be eligible for this lawsuit as long as you can prove it was IMS related...
07-11-2013, 02:22 PM
#5
Rennlist Member
07-11-2013, 03:18 PM
#6
so, if I read the settlement correctly, my 04 now has an IMS warranty for the next year?
edit: since I am the 3rd owner I have a 25% warranty... feels so much better... :-(
edit: since I am the 3rd owner I have a 25% warranty... feels so much better... :-(
07-11-2013, 07:38 PM
#7
Trending Topics
07-11-2013, 11:59 PM
#8
You can only get a settlement if your car has a failure within its first 10 years of service. I am guessing under the state the lawsuit was filed in that they assessed the life of a car to be 10 years or 130K miles. This is not uncommon with these types of cases. With the 10 year stipulation, most 2003's are old enough that if they did not have a failure, they would also be out of the time limits for the settlement. This also means that Porsche has less than 2 more years that they would have any claims. The last of the cars with this particular engine design (single roller bearing) was the 2005 C4S, which was out of production by summer 2005. There is really nothing confusing here.
07-12-2013, 09:53 AM
#9
Drifting
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Ephrata, PA, USA now. Originally from the UK
Posts: 3,075
Likes: 0
Received 22 Likes
on
17 Posts
I wonder why the year 1999 and 2000 Carrera are not covered. I would like to think that the double row bearing is less susceptible to failure than the single row bearing of the later models 996 Carrera. Can anyone verify that a 99/2000 Carrera (not the boxster) has in fact failed because of the double row bearing.
07-12-2013, 09:43 PM
#10
I wonder why the year 1999 and 2000 Carrera are not covered. I would like to think that the double row bearing is less susceptible to failure than the single row bearing of the later models 996 Carrera. Can anyone verify that a 99/2000 Carrera (not the boxster) has in fact failed because of the double row bearing.
07-13-2013, 12:25 AM
#11
Rennlist Member
This is how I read it... (reposted here from the main thread)
Winners: These guys get worthwhile checks
Winners: These guys get worthwhile checks
1. Class action attorneys. $950,000 from PCNA. (dingdingding! We have the big winner!)
2. Current and previous owners of 01-05 Boxsters and 911's that had:
So-So: Something (25%) is better than nothing?2. Current and previous owners of 01-05 Boxsters and 911's that had:
a. Purchased new or ACPO.
b. Meet the class definition by serial number (looks like most/all 01-05's)
c. Already experienced IMS related engine issues or failure.
d. Fixed the issues (as opposed to selling the vehicle with bad engine).
e. Repair costs were significant and unreimbursed by PCNA or insurance.
f. Have full and complete service documentation and receipts that clearly list the IMSB as a cause of the problem.
b. Meet the class definition by serial number (looks like most/all 01-05's)
c. Already experienced IMS related engine issues or failure.
d. Fixed the issues (as opposed to selling the vehicle with bad engine).
e. Repair costs were significant and unreimbursed by PCNA or insurance.
f. Have full and complete service documentation and receipts that clearly list the IMSB as a cause of the problem.
1. Current and previous 01-05 986/996 owners that:
Losers: They get nothing :a. Purchased used, non ACPO
b. - f. (as above)
2. Current owners of 2003-2004 986/996's that:b. - f. (as above)
a. Might experience an IMS related failure in the near future (before 10 years in-service or 130,000 miles)
1. Owners that:
a. Had failures, but sold the car as-is at a reduced price.
b. Had failures, but have inadequate documentation per the settlement standard.
c. Installed preventative IMS bearings or warning devices.
d. Might have a failure in the future, but after 10 years in-service.
e. Have pre 2001 or post 2004 vehicles and experienced IMS failures
b. Had failures, but have inadequate documentation per the settlement standard.
c. Installed preventative IMS bearings or warning devices.
d. Might have a failure in the future, but after 10 years in-service.
e. Have pre 2001 or post 2004 vehicles and experienced IMS failures
07-13-2013, 12:55 AM
#12
This is how I read it... (reposted here from the main thread)[INDENT]
Winners: These guys get worthwhile checks
[INDENT]1. Class action attorneys. $950,000 from PCNA. (dingdingding! We have the big winner!)
2. Current and previous owners of 01-05 Boxsters and 911's that had:
Winners: These guys get worthwhile checks
[INDENT]1. Class action attorneys. $950,000 from PCNA. (dingdingding! We have the big winner!)
2. Current and previous owners of 01-05 Boxsters and 911's that had:
a. Purchased new or ACPO.
b. Meet the class definition by serial number (looks like most/all 01-05's)
c. Already experienced IMS related engine issues or failure.
d. Fixed the issues (as opposed to selling the vehicle with bad engine).
e. Repair costs were significant and unreimbursed by PCNA or insurance.
f. Have full and complete service documentation and receipts that clearly list the IMSB as a cause of the problem.
b. Meet the class definition by serial number (looks like most/all 01-05's)
c. Already experienced IMS related engine issues or failure.
d. Fixed the issues (as opposed to selling the vehicle with bad engine).
e. Repair costs were significant and unreimbursed by PCNA or insurance.
f. Have full and complete service documentation and receipts that clearly list the IMSB as a cause of the problem.
07-13-2013, 01:10 PM
#13
Drifting
I wonder why the year 1999 and 2000 Carrera are not covered. I would like to think that the double row bearing is less susceptible to failure than the single row bearing of the later models 996 Carrera. Can anyone verify that a 99/2000 Carrera (not the boxster) has in fact failed because of the double row bearing.
In other words, the failure rate on the '99 & '00 cars was so small that it was statistically insignificant.
