Thought this might be interesting info for some of us.

http://ftw.truckmoxie.com/forums/top...spitting_plugs

 

If mine ever spits Ford is paying for it
ONE WAY OR ANOTHER
Thats all I will say

But as far as a Lawsuit On Spitting Plugs,
IT'S ABOUT FRIGGING TIME.........................

!!! GIVE ME HEAD FORD !!!

Good Info Red

 

I could've sworn that I asked about a class action lawsuit regarding this and the leaky intercooler about a year ago.

glad somone is following through with it

 

Below is an excerpt from a brief that I did last year. Bottom line -- with a precious few exceptions, until YOUR plug spits, you are not a proper plaintiff.


"Alleged product defects are not legally compensable in either contract or tort unless and until the plaintiff sustains some injury as a result of the defect—whether or not safety is implicated. “It is well established that purchasers of an allegedly defective product have no legally recognizable claim where the alleged defect has not manifested itself.” (Weaver v. Chrysler Corp. (S.D.N.Y. 1997) 172 F.R.D. 96, 99-100 (unmanifested child safety belt defects; dismissing fraud, negligent misrepresentation, breach of warranty, and consumer protection statute claims). “Where, as here, a product performs satisfactorily and never exhibits the alleged defect, no cause of action lies.” (Id.)
Indeed, as accurately stated by the Eight Circuit:
It is well-established that purchasers of an allegedly defective product have no legally cognizable claim where the alleged defect has not manifested itself in the product they own.
. . .
An overwhelming majority of courts have dismissed these unmanifested defect claims and rejected the idea that Plaintiffs can sue manufacturers for speculative damage.
Briehl v. General Motors Corp., 172 F.2d 623, 628-30 (8th Cir. 1999).
See also Khan v. Shiley Inc. (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 848, 855 (allegedly defective heart valve; proof of an actual product malfunction is essential to establish liability for an injury caused by the defect); Yost v. GMC (D.N.J.) 651 F. Supp. 656 (unmanifested allegedly unsafe engine defect; breach of warranty and fraud dismissed); American Suzuki Motor Corp. v. Superior Court (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 1291, 1296 (allegedly dangerous defect potentially causing vehicle rollover; plaintiffs cannot recover for injury that is purely speculative and may never occur); Hubbard v. GMC (S.D.N.Y.) 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6974 at *9 (allegedly defective braking system; breach of warranty and fraud claims dismissed; “purchasers of an allegedly defective product have no legally recognizable claim where the alleged defect has not manifested itself in the product they own”); Feinstein v. Firestone Tire and Rubber Co. (S.D.N.Y. 1982) 535 F. Supp. 595, 602-03 (S.D.N.Y. 1982) (claim for allegedly defective tires dismissed; “liability does not exist in a vacuum; there must be a showing of some damage”; “their Firestone tires led full and uneventful lives. . . . I am, therefore, led to conclude that in respect of the considerable majority of Firestone tires covered by this litigation, the ‘rubber met the road’ and continued to do so, without incident, during their predicted lives of service”); Barbarin v. General Motors Corp. (D.D.C 1993) 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20980 at *7 (dismissing complaint of unmanifested potential “premature rear wheel lock-up” defect; “a contrary rule would, in effect, contemplate indemnity for a potential injury that never, in fact, materialized; compensation would have to be paid for a product “defect” that was never made manifest, in a product that for the life of any warranty actually performed as the warrantor guaranteed it would.”); In re Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. Tires Prod. Liab. Litig., 155 F. Supp.2d 1069, 1087 (S.D. Ind. 2001) (dismissing on the pleadings claims of plaintiffs who sought to recover for the possibility that their tires will suffer a tread separation in the future because of a defect and for the possibility their vehicles will roll over in the future, or for the lower resale price they might receive resulting from those possibilities, because "[t]hese simply are not cognizable tort injuries"); Jarman v. United Indus. Corp., 98 F.Supp.2d 757, 768 (S.D. Miss. 2000) (dismissing on the pleadings plaintiff's claims for common law fraud, negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, breach of warranty, RICO violations, and civil conspiracy resulting from his purchase of allegedly defective termiticide, because plaintiff failed to adequately plead damages; "[U]nless there is actually a failure in product performance, there is no basis at all for claiming that the plaintiff has been damaged in any way. Mere suspicion of a lost bargain . . . will not support an award of damages"); In re Air Bag Prod. Liab. Litig., 7 F.Supp.2d 792, 805 (E.D. La. 1998) (allegedly defective airbags; "plaintiffs have failed to advance any allegation of manifest injury or defect, both central tenets of their tort and implied warranty claims"); Walus v. Pfizer, Inc., 812 F.Supp. 41, 44 (D. N.J. 1993) (dismissing on summary judgment plaintiffs' claims for negligence, strict liability, failure to warn, fraud, misrepresentation, and negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress involving allegedly defective heart valve that had been working correctly since implanted, because "a cause of action based on a claim that a normally functioning product might fail at some unknown time" is not recognized); Ford Motor Co. v. Rice (Ala. 1998) 726 So.2d 626, 631 (affirming dismissal on summary judgment of putative class claims for costs to repair alleged design defect that caused sport utility vehicles to roll over, where none of the vehicles had actually rolled over and caused personal injuries or property damage, because "an alleged product defect that has not manifested itself in such a way as to cause any observable adverse physical or economic consequences [does not] constitute any 'injury' that will support a claim of fraudulent suppression"); Pfizer, Inc. v. Farsian (Ala. 1996) 682 So.2d 405, 406-07 (a heart valve implantee does have a valid cause of action for fraud if he asserts that the valve's manufacturer fraudulently induced him to have the valve implanted when the damages that he asserts do not include an injury-producing malfunction of the product because the valve has been and is working properly"; "Farsian's fear that his valve could fail in the future is not, without more, a legal injury sufficient to support his claim"); Yu v. Int'l Bus. Mach. Corp. (Ill. App. 2000) 732 N.E.2d 1173, 1177 (affirming dismissal on the pleadings of class action to recover damages arising out of sale of computer software that allegedly was not year 2000 compliant and that may cause potential harm, because "[a]s plaintiff's claims of consumer fraud, deceptive trade practices and negligence require actual injury or damage, we hold that plaintiff's claims constitute conjecture and speculation"); Ayers v. Township of Jackson (Law. Div. 1983) 189 N.J. Super. 561, 567 (“No recovery can be allowed for possible . . . tortious conduct”).

 

Tim,
I melted 2 plugs and killed my heads and shortblock. Can I get in on this one?
Regards,
Tom

 

YA WHAT TIM SAID

BTW,
What did he say

 

Summarized Tim version:

If you ain’t spit no damn plug you don’t get CHIT…

 

What he said.

I'm not saying for sure that this particular suit won't work. But I researched this issue extensively, and very few unmanifested defect suits have survived the scrutiny of the court.

The rationale is this: A manufacturer gives you a warranty. That warranty does not say that the product will not fail; it says that if the product does fail, it will be repaired.

These unmanifested defect cases are often called "peace of mind" suits -- if every concerned customer could demand service before it is even needed, the system would grind to a halt and prices would skyrocket. Do you want to pay $50,000 for your next truck just so someone can have "peace of mind" that nothing will go wrong with them?

There are exceptions. If safety is implicated, a recall may be ordered or a suit may survive. The rationale there is a little different -- if there is a clear and present danger of disastrous consequences, then it makes sense to force the manufacturer to pony up.

 

I kinda agree, They dont warranty for the future, they warranty for the NOW

Like in the insurance biz I am in, Had an insured call me, I have a limb from one of my trees that is about to fall or break and hit my house.

I am like "OKAY"

Well should I make a claim??

I say "well unfortunately we can't insure for a guesstimate on when it will happen, so you will either have to pay someone to get it down, or wait for it to happen and then do the claim. I suggest you go ahead and take it down, but you can do what you want, but don't come to me if it hits someone and kills them and you get sued for more liabilty money than you have. Again I suggest you go ahead and pay to take it down, and not hurt your home or body."

Oh Okay Matt, Thats probably a good idea.

 

If this is a known issue and they cant do anything until it actually happens, what if it happens to one of our trucks after the warranty on it expires?

Are we out of luck?

My warranty is up i Dec. and id hate for this to happen sometime in the 05yr.

 

"grabbed my bluebook from Law review, checking the citations"....