|
|
NEWS
RECALLS
COMPLAINT FORM
SCAM ALERTS
RESOURCES
Small Claims Guide Class Actions Lemon Laws FAQ Newsletters |
Share |
| Automotive Education Employment Electronics Family Finance Health Homeowners Insurance Pets Shopping Travel |
|
|
|
20 Years of StonewallingFord Settles Ignition Suit |
|||||
|
October 25, 2001
The settlement reached in a San Francisco-area court will cover nearly 23 million vehicles produced from 1983 to 1995, about 9 million of which are no longer on the road. The ignition system was placed too close to the engine in the affected models, causing the cars to overheat and stall. The settlement could cost Ford as much as $2 billion if all the vehicle owners come forward to collect an average payment of $160 to cover parts and labor. Besides California, the settlement covers similar class-action lawsuits in Alabama, Maryland, Tennessee and Washington. Ford has fought the case every step of the way, angering auto safety activists who said the delays allowed an unsafe condition to persist. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration studied the case but ultimately declined to order a recall, further angering safety advocates. Clarence Ditlow of the Center for Auto Safety praised the settlement, saying it sends a message to automakers that "it's no longer cheaper to stonewall than recall." Former NHTSA Administrator Joan Claybrook said the case shows the importance of consumer class action litigation as a way to hold companies responsible when government fails to act. On Oct. 11, after more than six months of trial in Alameda County Superior Court, Judge Michael E. Ballachey affirmed an earlier decision which found that Ford had engaged in "massive consumer fraud" by "concealing a serious safety defect" from consumers and regulators. Ballachey, who earlier speculated that Ford was living in an "Alice in Wonderland" dreamworld, had also ordered Ford to recall and repair affected vehicles in California. The recall issue is still outstanding but under the terms of today's settlement, Ford agreed to pay for repairs on all affected vehicles. "The evidence that Ford intentionally concealed this safety defect from the public was overwhelming," said co-lead plaintiffs counsel Jeffrey Fazio of Hancock Rothert & Bunshoft LLP. "It is time for Ford to ... make good on its promise to act in the best interests of consumers." |
||||
Back to the top | Consumer News | |||||
Advertisement
|
|
Custom Search
|
||||
|
AUTOMOTIVE Dealers Manufacturers Service Extended Warranties Lemon Laws Recalls Tires Transporters FAMILY Aging Children, Parenting Recalls Dating Education Entertainment Pets Weddings |
FINANCE Annuities Banks Credit Cards Debt Collection Debt Counseling Insurance Investing Loans Mortgages Payday Loans Student Loans Tax Prep HEALTH Doctors Drugs, Pharmacies Health Clubs Hearing Care Hospitals Nursing Homes Nutrition, Diets Vision Care Weight Loss |
HOUSE & HOME Appliances Cookware Furniture Home Improvements Lawn & Garden Movers Pools & Spas Realtors, Rental Agents Recalls Utilities ELECTRONICS Cable TV/DBS Cameras Cell Phones Computers Home Electronics Internet Access Local Phone Service Long Distance VoIP |
SHOPPING In-Home Online Retail Stores Sporting Goods Supermarkets Telemarketers TRAVEL Airlines Bus Lines Car Rental Cruises Hotels Travel Agents Trains RESOURCES Class Actions Complaint Form Small Claims Guide Lemon Laws |
CONSUMER NEWS Latest News Automotive Telecom Financial Health Homeowners Scams Seniors Travel More ... RECALLS Automotive Children's Products Drugs Food Household Products Sporting Goods ABOUT US FAQ Privacy Policy Advertise With Us Newsroom Syndication Terms of Use |
Terms of Use Your use of this site constitutes acceptance of the Terms of Use
Copyright © 2003-2009 ConsumerAffairs.com Inc. All Rights Reserved. The contents of this site may not be republished, reprinted, rewritten or recirculated without written permission. |
|