Untitled - MLG Automotive Law

Transcription

10.VIOLATION OF VIRGINIA
CONSUMER PROTECTION
ACT OF 1977.
1
2
3
4
PARTIES
5
6
A.
The Plaintiffs.
1.
Plaintiffs Gordon Hair and Brenda Hair are the parents of Benjamin
7
8
9
Hair, who died, tragically, at the age of 20. Gordon Hair and Brenda Hair were
10
appointed as co-Administrators of the Estate of Benjamin Hair on December 28,
11
2009. A copy of the Certificate and Letter of Qualification is attached as Exhibit 1.
12
Gordon Hair and Brenda Hair are residents of Charlottesville, Virginia, and they
13
submit to the jurisdiction of this Court.
14
15
2.
On December 13, 2009, 20-year-old Benjamin Hair was killed while
16
driving a 2007 Pontiac G5 (VIN 1G2AL15F677127811) that was manufactured by
17
General Motors. Plaintiffs Gordon and Brenda Hair purchased the vehicle new for
18
their son, Benjamin Hair, from a Pontiac new car dealership, and had the car
19
registered to Brenda Hair. Prior to the purchase, the Hairs saw and relied upon
20
advertising campaigns from General Motors for the Pontiac G5, including
21
advertising brochures prepared by General Motors and disseminated by its dealer
22
network, discussing the vehicle’s safety features. The Hairs’ primary motivation
23
for purchasing the vehicle was obtaining a safely designed and manufactured
24
vehicle for their son.
25
26
3.
Unbeknownst to the Hairs, the 2007 Pontiac G5 vehicles contained a
27
life-threatening safety defect in the ignition switch that had been known by General
28
Motors for years, but intentionally concealed from the Hairs and the public at large
2
COMPLAINT
1
until February 2014. On December 13, 2009, this concealed safety defect caused
2
Benjamin Hair’s vehicle to malfunction, and slam into a tree at approximately 50
3
mph, instantly killing him.
4
5
4.
The Hairs did not learn of the ignition switch defect on the Pontiac G5
6
until March 2014, when General Motors notified them that the vehicle was being
7
recalled for the defect. Because GM engaged in a decade-long conspiracy to
8
fraudulently conceal this life-threatening defect from its consumers, including the
9
Hairs, they could not have discovered the defect any earlier than March 2014
10
through the use of reasonable diligence. Had the Hairs known about the defect,
11
they would not have purchased this vehicle, would not have paid a premium price,
12
and would not have retained the vehicle.
13
14
B.
The Defendants.
5.
The Pontiac G5 that killed Benjamin Hair was manufactured by
15
16
17
General Motors Corporation, and was sold to the Hairs in May 2007 by Colonial
18
Auto Center in Charlottesville, Virginia, a franchised Pontiac dealer. The vehicle
19
came with an express bumper-to-bumper warranty that was valid for three years or
20
36,000 miles, whichever came first. At the time of the fatal accident, the vehicle
21
had approximately 30,000 miles on it, and had been in use for only two and one-
22
half years, invoking the full benefits of the manufacturer’s express warranty.
23
24
6.
On June 1, 2009, General Motors Corporation filed for bankruptcy in
25
the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, Case
26
No. 09-50026. Defendant General Motors LLC was formed as a Delaware limited
27
liability company for the purpose of serving as the successor-in-interest for General
28
Motors Corporation following the bankruptcy.
3
COMPLAINT
1
2
7.
As part of the bankruptcy reorganization process, the newly-created
3
company, Defendant General Motors LLC, acquired substantially all of the assets
4
of old GM, and assumed old GM’s business operations. The new company also
5
assumed certain liabilities of old GM under Bankruptcy Code 363, including
6
liability for all death and personal injury caused by their vehicles and the
7
components thereof. This assumption also included the express warranty for the
8
Hairs’ 2007 Pontiac G5.
9
10
8.
On June 26, 2009, the new GM entered into an agreement titled,
11
Amended and Restated Master Sale and Purchase Agreement by and Among
12
General Motors Corporation, Saturn LLC, Saturn Distribution Corporation and
13
Chevrolet-Saturn of Harlem, Inc., as Sellers and NGMCO, Inc., a Purchaser,
14
wherein new GM expressly assumed certain liabilities of old GM, as follows:
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Section 2.3 Assumed and Retained Liabilities
***
(vii) (A) all liabilities arising under express
written warranties of Sellers [old GM] that
are specifically identified as warranties and
delivered in connection with the sale of new,
certified used or pre-owned vehicles or new
or remanufactured motor vehicle parts and
equipment
(including
service
parts,
accessories, engines and transmissions)
manufactured or sold by Sellers [old GM] or
Purchaser [new GM] prior to or after the
Closing and (B) all obligations under Lemon
Laws;
***
(ix) all Liabilities to third parties for death,
personal injury, or other injury to Persons
4
COMPLAINT
or damage to property caused by motor
vehicles designed for operation on public
roadways or by the component parts of
such motor vehicles and, in each case,
manufactured, sold or delivered by Sellers
[old
GM]
(collectively,
“Product
Liabilities”), which arise directly out of
accidents, incidents or other distinct and
discreet occurrences that happen on or after
the Closing Date and arise from such motor
vehicles’ operation or performance (for
avoidance of doubt, Purchaser shall not
assume, or become liable to pay, perform or
discharge, any Liability arising or contended
to arise by reason of exposure to materials
utilized in the assembly or fabrication of
motor vehicles manufactured by Sellers and
delivered prior to the Closing Date, including
asbestos, silicates or fluids, regardless of
when such alleged exposure occurs);
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
(Emphasis added).
9.
The new GM also agreed to comply with all laws relating to the timely
18
reporting of safety defects for its vehicles, including the Hairs’ 2007 Pontiac G5.
19
On July 5, 2009, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of
20
New York entered the following Order: (I) Authorizing Sale of Assets Pursuant to
21
Amended and Restated Master Sale and Purchase Agreement with NGMCO, Inc.,
22
a U.S. Treasury-Sponsored Purchaser; (II) Authorizing Assumption and
23
Assignment of Certain Executory Contracts and Unexpired Leases in Connection
24
with the Sale; and (III) Granting Related Relief, [Docket No. 2968]. This Order
25
stated:
26
27
28
From and after the Closing, the Purchaser
[new GM] shall comply with the
certification, reporting, and all recall
5
COMPLAINT
requirements of the National Traffic and
Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended and
recodified, including by the Transportation
Recall Enhancement Accountability and
Documentation Act, the Clean Air Act, the
California Health and Safety Code, and
similar Laws, in each case, to the extent
applicable in respect of motor vehicles,
vehicles, motor vehicle equipment, and
vehicle parts manufactured or distributed by
the Sellers [old GM] prior to the closing.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
10.
Because the newly-created company, Defendant General Motors LLC:
i) assumed all liabilities to third parties for death, personal injury, or other injury to
persons or damage to property caused by GM vehicles or by the component parts
thereof, ii) assumed the express warranty for the Hairs’ 2007 Pontiac G5, iii) was
ordered to comply with all of the reporting and recall requirements of the National
Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as they relate to the Hairs’ 2007 Pontiac G5,
iv) acquired substantially all of old GM’s assets through the 363 Bankruptcy Sale,
v) ran the new GM as a continuing enterprise of the old GM, and vi) was fully aware
of, and took steps to conceal, a known safety defect in the Hairs’ 2007 Pontiac G5,
it is liable to the Hairs for the acts and omissions alleged in this Complaint.
11.
GM is authorized to do business in the State of California, and is
identified as entity number 200928910138. GM’s principal place of business is
Detroit, Michigan.
12.
Plaintiffs are unaware of the true names of Does 1 through 25 and
therefore sue them by such fictitious names, and will ask for leave of Court to insert
their true names when such have been ascertained.
28
6
COMPLAINT
1
13.
Each of the Defendants herein was the agent of each of the remaining
2
Defendants, and in doing the things hereinafter alleged, was acting within the course
3
and scope of such agency and with the permission of his/her/its co-Defendants.
4
Whenever reference is made to any act by Defendant or its subsidiaries, affiliates,
5
and other related entities, such allegation shall be deemed to mean that the
6
principals, officers, directors, employees, agents, and/or representatives of
7
Defendant committed, knew of, performed, authorized, ratified and/or directed that
8
act or transaction for Defendant while engaged in the scope of their duties.
9
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
10
11
12
A.
Subject Matter Jurisdiction.
14.
This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter presented by this
13
14
15
Complaint because this is a dispute among parties of different states, making the
16
matter completely diverse as defined by 28 U.S.C. § 1332, and the amount in
17
controversy exceeds $75,000.
18
19
B.
Personal Jurisdiction.
15.
This Court has personal jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs Gordon Hair
20
21
22
and Brenda Hair, because the Plaintiffs consent to such jurisdiction.
23
24
16.
This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant General Motors
25
LLC, because it engages in significant business throughout the State of California,
26
thus providing the State of California with general jurisdiction.
27
28
7
COMPLAINT
1
C.
Venue.
17.
Venue in this District is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because
2
3
4
Defendant General Motors LLC, as a limited liability company, is deemed to reside
5
in any district in which it is subject to personal jurisdiction. The Plaintiff consents
6
to the venue of the Court. Moreover, because Defendant General Motors LLC has
7
failed to identify a California principal place of business in their Statement of
8
Information filed with the California Secretary of State as required by California
9
Corporations Code § 2105, venue is proper in this county and judicial district. In
10
addition, following the ignition switch cover-up by Defendant General Motors
11
LLC, 54 class action lawsuits have been filed against the Defendant throughout the
12
United States. Of these, 18 related cases are filed in the U.S. District Court, Central
13
District of California, as follows: (i) Martin Ponce v. General Motors LLC, United
14
States District Court No.: 2:14-cv-02161; (ii) Kimi L. Hurst v. General Motors
15
Company, United States District Court No.: 2:14-cv-02619; (iii) Sylvia Benton v.
16
General Motors LLC, United States District Court No.: 5:14-cv-00590; (iv)
17
Esperanza Ramirez, et al. v. General Motors LLC, et al., United States District
18
Court No.: 2:14-cv-02344; (v) Taylor Deushane v. General Motors LLC, United
19
States District Court No.: 8:14-cv-00476; (vi) Devora Kelley v. General Motors
20
Company, United States District Court No.: 8:14-cv-00465; (vii) Daniel Ratzlaff,
21
et al. v. General Motors LLC, United States District Court No.: 2:14-cv-00476;
22
(viii) Teleso Satele, et al. v. General Motors LLC, United States District Court
23
No.: 8:14-cv-00485; (ix) Katie Michelle McConnell v. General Motors LLC,
24
United States District Court No.: 8:14-cv-00424; (x) Nicole Heuler v. General
25
Motors LLC, United States District Court No.: 8:14-cv-00492; (xi) Tammie Balls,
26
et al. v. General Motors LLC, United States District Court No.: 2:14-cv-02475;
27
(xii) Sara Robinson, et al. v. General Motors LLC, United States District Court
28
No.: 2:14-cv-02510; (xiii) Larry Darby v. General Motors LLC, et al., United
8
COMPLAINT
1
States District Court No.: 5:14-cv-00676; (xiv) Camlan Inc., et al. v. General
2
Motors LLC, United States District Court No.: 8:14-cv-00535; (xv) Javier F.
3
Malaga, et al. v. General Motors LLC, United States District Court No.: 8:14-cv-
4
00533; (xvi) Kimberly Brown, et al. v. General Motors LLC, United States District
5
Court No.: 2:14-cv-02828; (xvii) Ken Saclo, et al. v. General Motors LLC, et al.,
6
United States District Court No.: 8:14-cv-00604; (xviii) Ronald Cox v. General
7
Motors LLC, et al., United States District Court No.: 2:14-cv-02608.
8
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
9
10
11
A.
The Deadly Safety Defect and GM’s Concealment.
18.
GM manufactures consumer vehicles that are sold throughout the
12
13
14
United States, and in numerous countries around the world. In its quest to capture
15
market share, GM claims to be a leader of manufacturing safe vehicles, making
16
statements like, “General Motors uses extensive testing to ensure the quality and
17
safety of our vehicles,” and “quality and safety are at the top of the agenda at GM.”
18
In truth, however, GM is far more concerned about financial gain than the well-
19
being of its customers; the statements about commitment to safety are merely a ruse
20
to sell more cars to the consuming public.
21
22
19.
In the early 2000s, GM sought to develop a new entrant into the
23
subcompact car market that would compete against foreign manufacturers who had
24
long dominated the market.
25
understood that it had to build the car as inexpensively as possible, in order to yield
26
an economical MSRP sticker price. The result of these efforts was the development
27
of the “Delta platform,” a compact front-wheel drive and crossover SUV platform.
28
The Delta platform was used to build the Saturn Ion – GM’s first entrant into this
To compete against these manufacturers, GM
9
COMPLAINT
1
market. The Saturn Ion was introduced as a 2003 model, and was first displayed at
2
the 2002 New York International Auto Show.
3
4
20.
In 2001, during the pre-development of the Saturn Ion, GM engineers
5
discovered that there was a defect in the design and manufacture of the Ion’s
6
ignition switch system. In testing, the engineers found that the ignition switch
7
would, for no apparent reason, turn from the “On” position, to the “Accessory” or
8
“Off” position while driving. This event would cause the engine to suddenly turn
9
off, and would also disable the vehicle’s power steering, power brakes and airbags.
10
GM engineers determined that the problem was the length of the “detent spring and
11
plunger” that was built into the ignition switch.
12
13
21.
In September and October 2001, GM designed a fix to the defect by
14
lengthening the detent spring and plunger. As GM would later state, “The longer
15
plunger and spring increase the effort when turning the key,” thus eliminating the
16
switch from unexpectedly turning to the “Accessory” or “Off” positions. However,
17
after designing the fix, GM rejected the redesign because of cost, allowing the
18
Saturn Ion to be built with the defective part – and knowingly putting a vehicle into
19
the stream of commerce that would shut off during normal use.
20
21
22.
In February 2002, GM directed Delphi, the ignition switch
22
manufacturer, to build the defective part even though “the ignition switch torque
23
was below the original specifications set by GM.” As Joan Claybrook, the former
24
head of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (“NHTSA”), stated:
25
“General Motors picked a smaller and cheaper ignition switch that cost consumers
26
their lives and saved General Motors money.”
27
28
10
COMPLAINT
1
23.
In 2003, after the launch of the Saturn Ion, GM began receiving
2
complaints from consumers about their Ions suddenly shutting off, yet did nothing
3
to correct the problem.
4
5
24.
Following the introduction of the Ion, GM began developing other
6
low-cost vehicles on the Delta platform. This included the Chevrolet Cobalt, which
7
debuted in 2005, and the Pontiac G5, which was introduced in 2007. Both the
8
Cobalt and the G5 were built in the same GM assembly plant in Lordstown, Ohio,
9
and other than differences in the grille, headlights, taillights and badging, the two
10
vehicles are virtually identical. The G5 was essentially the same vehicle as the
11
Cobalt, but with Pontiac badging.
12
13
25.
When GM developed the Cobalt and the G5, it used the same ignition
14
switch that was in the Saturn Ion, despite knowing that the switch was defective and
15
had been the subject of numerous consumer complaints. As internal GM documents
16
state, “The Chevrolet Cobalt began production with the Saturn Ion ignition switch.
17
All model years Cobalt, Pursuit, G5, Ion and HHR have the same mechanical
18
properties for the ignition switch.”
19
20
26.
While the Cobalt was in development in 2004, GM engineers again
21
witnessed problems with the vehicle unexpectedly shutting off – the same type of
22
problem they experienced when developing the Ion in 2001: the vehicles suddenly
23
shut off, as the ignition switch moved from the “On” to the “Accessory” or “Off”
24
position. As one engineer commented in a 2005 email, “I was very aware of an
25
issue with ‘inadvertent ignitions offs’ due to the low mounted ignition switch in the
26
steering column and the low efforts required to rotate the ignition.” Nevertheless,
27
as with the Saturn Ion, GM allowed the vehicles to be built with the defective part,
28
and placed in the hands of unsuspecting consumers, endangering their lives.
11
COMPLAINT
1
2
27.
On November 19, 2004, after the Cobalt was already being sold in
3
dealerships throughout the country, GM opened an engineering inquiry, called a
4
Problem Resolution Tracking System (PRTS No. N172404), to further examine the
5
ignition switch defect. In February 2005, GM engineers met to consider solutions
6
to the ignition switch problem, but a Cobalt engineering manager issued a
7
“directive” to the team to close the inquiry with no action. (Emphasis added). The
8
reasons cited for the decision were “lead time of all solutions is too long,” “tooling
9
cost and piece price are too high,” and “none of the solutions represents an
10
acceptable business case.” (Emphasis added).
11
12
28.
Following the decision to not fix the defective switch, GM began
13
receiving complaints from customers about their Cobalts suddenly shutting off. As
14
one internal email stated, “[t]here are many reports of that condition for 2005-07.”
15
16
29.
On May 24, 2005, the company opened another Problem Resolution
17
Tracking System (PRTS No. N182276) because of “[c]ustomer concern that the
18
vehicle ignition will turn off while driving.” This inquiry noted that the issue had
19
already been addressed in the November 2004 PRTS, and that a directive had been
20
given to not fix the problem. However, management requested that the issue be
21
reopened because of the “level of buyback activity [of vehicles] that is developing
22
in the field.”
23
24
30.
Four months after the May 2005 engineering inquiry was opened, GM
25
engineers Craig St. Pierre and David Trush designed yet another fix for the
26
defective ignition switch.
27
canceled. In internal emails, GM management explained, “The redesigned switch
28
was presented to the program team, but rejected due to cost and long timing.”
However, after initial approval, the redesign was
12
COMPLAINT
1
(Emphasis added). As GM would later state, “After consideration of the lead time
2
required, cost, and effectiveness of each of these solutions, the [investigation] was
3
closed with no action.”
4
5
31.
In April 2014, the House Energy and Commerce Oversight and
6
Investigations Subcommittee investigated the matter, and found that GM had made
7
a conscious decision to scrap the redesign – even though it would have eliminated
8
a serious defect and saved countless lives – because it would have increased the
9
cost per unit by $0.57. The House Subcommittee found:
10
As soon the Chevy Cobalt rolled off the
production line in 2004, customers began
filing complaints about the ignition switch.
These customers told General Motors that
just by bumping the key with their knee while
driving the Cobalt, it would shut off. In 2004
and 2005, GM engineers twice considered the
problem and even developed potential
solutions to fix it, but decided the “tooling
cost and piece prices are too high” and that
“none of the solutions represent an
acceptable business case.”
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
***
Documents provided by GM show that this
unacceptable cost increase was only 57 cents.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
32.
In September 2005 – the same month that the company scrapped the
redesign because of the $0.57 price increase – GM opened its first legal file on a
fatality caused by the ignition switch failure. This still did not compel GM to
approve the part redesign. Instead, in December 2005 GM issued a one-page
Service Bulletin to its dealers (Bulletin No. 05-02-35-007) instructing them to
install a snap-on key cover for customers who complained of the problem.
13
COMPLAINT
1
Inexplicably, the Service Bulletin only related to some of the vehicles that contained
2
the defective switch. It would take GM nearly another year – until October 2006 –
3
to amend the Service Bulletin to include these additional models. That month, GM
4
issued Bulletin No. 05-02-35-007A to its dealers, informing them that the following
5
vehicles were prone to unexpectedly shutting off:
6
7
 2005-07 Chevrolet Cobalt
8
 2006-07 Chevrolet HHR
9
 2007 Pontiac G5 [the vehicle that killed Benjamin Hair]
10
 2006-07 Pontiac Solstice
11
 2003-07 Saturn Ion
12
 2007 Saturn Sky
13
14
33.
This Bulletin gave the same recommendation: provide a snap-on key
15
cover for customers who complained of the problem. However, GM did nothing to
16
inform the consuming public about the problem, nor did it tell its dealers to install
17
the snap-on key cover on the new cars they sold.
18
19
34.
By 2007, GM had knowingly and maliciously placed over one million
20
vehicles on U.S. highways that were manufactured with what GM knew to be a
21
defective ignition switch. While the defect was well known to GM engineers and
22
upper management, the company continued to conceal it from the buying public.
23
Hence, consumers such as the Hairs never knew, nor could have known, of the
24
deadly defect.
25
26
27
35.
As consumers began to die or suffer serious injury, GM systematically
tracked the events, creating secret database files for ignition switch accidents. In
28
14
COMPLAINT
1
these files, GM would made notes to specific customers’ files, with callous
2
notations such as:
3
4

Fatality
5

Traumatic brain injury
6

Quadriplegic
7

Lost teeth, several stitches in mouth, broken ankle, broken
wrist
8
9
10
36.
Also, as part of its ongoing investigation, GM retrieved and studied
11
Event Data Recorder information from certain crashes. All of GM cars that
12
contained the defective ignition switch were equipped with Event Data Recorders
13
– a “black box” of sorts – that were embedded in the floor of vehicles. The Event
14
Data Recorder contains an enormous amount of downloadable information about
15
the vehicle that can help reconstruct the cause of a crash. For instance, the Event
16
Data Recorders capture (at the point of impact) the vehicle’s speed, throttle position,
17
braking degree, gear position, outside temperature, seatbelt position, and among
18
many other things, ignition position. Internal GM documents show that the Event
19
Data Recorders from vehicles with the faulty ignition switch repeatedly showed that
20
the ignition was in the “Accessory” position at the point of impact.
21
22
37.
Despite the fact that GM had known for years that its vehicles
23
contained this major defect, when consumers began asserting claims against the
24
automaker for accidents caused by the vehicles, GM uniformly told the families that
25
it had “no responsibility” for the death and injuries caused by its products. Instead
26
of taking responsibility for its actions, GM attempted to intimidate the families into
27
dismissing their claims, in some instances going so far as to threaten the families
28
with malicious prosecution if they did not drop their claims.
15
COMPLAINT
1
2
B.
The 2014 Recall.
38.
On March 10, 2010, pediatric nurse Brooke Melton died on her 29th
3
4
5
birthday, when she lost control of her 2005 Chevy Cobalt and was hit on the
6
passenger side by an oncoming vehicle. Incredibly, Melton had just taken her
7
Cobalt into the dealership the day before the accident, after experiencing an
8
unexpected ignition switch shut-off. The following year, Melton’s family filed a
9
lawsuit against GM that uncovered years of lies told by the company to deceive the
10
consuming public.
11
12
39.
In mid-2013, Melton’s lawyer took the deposition of GM engineers
13
Gary Altman and Ray DeGorgio, who admitted under oath that GM had known of
14
the ignition switch problem since 2004, yet concealed it from regulators and
15
consumers. Under 49 Code of Federal Regulations § 573.6, auto manufacturers are
16
required to notify NHTSA within 5 business days of a safety defect in its vehicles,
17
or face a fine of up to $35 million. Pursuant to these regulations, GM was required
18
to report the defect to NHTSA at least as far back as 2004, if not earlier, given that
19
engineers experienced problems with the ignition switch in 2001 during early
20
testing on the Saturn Ion.
21
22
40.
After the GM engineers provided sworn testimony that they had
23
known of the defect since 2004, upper management began sending emails to its
24
parts supplier, Delphi, to determine exactly what documents Delphi had on the
25
topic. In October 2013, Delphi sent GM the engineer drawings of the ignition
26
switch used in Melton’s Cobalt, as well as the engineer drawings for the redesigned
27
part that was scrapped by GM in the mid-2000s because of cost. Delphi’s chief
28
engineers then gave PowerPoint presentations to GM upper management on
16
COMPLAINT
1
December 17, 2013 and January 31, 2014 about the magnitude of the problem, how
2
to contain it, and how to minimize the company’s exposure.
3
4
41.
Yet, it wasn’t until February 7, 2014 – 13 years after GM engineers
5
first discovered the problem – that GM finally told NHTSA that it was aware of a
6
major safety defect with its ignition switch. On February 13, 2014, GM issued a
7
U.S. recall of 778,000 Chevrolet Cobalt and Pontiac G5 vehicles. This recall
8
included the 2007 Pontiac G5 that killed Benjamin Hair.
9
10
42.
On February 24, 2014 GM sent a letter to NHTSA, admitting that it
11
had known of the defect since 2004, and that it had redesigned the part but cancelled
12
it because of cost. The automaker also admitted it had known that 6 people were
13
killed because of the defective part.
14
15
43.
As part of the recall, GM issued a public statement that it was “deeply
16
sorry” for the massive cover-up, and that it was “working to address the issue as
17
quickly as [it] can.” GM North America President Alan Batey stated, “Ensuring
18
our customers’ safety is our first order of business.”
19
20
44.
While GM was publicly stating that it was deeply sorry and that safety
21
was the company’s first order of business, these statements were merely part of the
22
company’s damage control campaign. Unexplainably, GM did not issue a recall
23
for four of the vehicles affected by the ignition switch defect (Saturn Ion, Saturn
24
Sky, Chevrolet HHR and Pontiac Solstice), even though it had known for years that
25
these vehicles contained the same deadly ignition switch, and were also subject to
26
the 2006 Service Bulletin that had been sent to dealers.
27
28
17
COMPLAINT
1
45.
It wasn’t until public outrage began to boil over, that on February 25,
2
2014 – just one day after GM’s February 24 “come clean” letter to NHTSA – GM
3
issued a second recall for the ignition switch, this time including the Ion, Sky, HHR
4
and Solstice, bringing the total recall to 1,367,146 U.S. vehicles. In conjunction
5
with this recall, and just one day after telling NHTSA that it was aware of 6 deaths,
6
GM now stated that it was actually aware of 13 deaths attributable to the ignition
7
switch, which GM later downgraded to 12. However, both of these numbers are
8
knowingly false and artificially low.
9
10
46.
GM is attempting to artificially deflate the number of fatalities by only
11
counting deaths that were caused by “front impact” crashes. Excluded from GM’s
12
math are fatalities that are the result of side-impact, roll-over, fire, or any other type
13
of accident caused by an ignition switch failure that did not result in a front impact
14
collision. Case in point: GM does not include Brooke Melton in the death toll
15
because she died in a side impact crash – even though her case is the one that
16
uncovered the years of GM’s fraud and deceit.
17
18
47.
On March 11, 2014, GM sent another letter to NHTSA, revising its
19
timeline for the third time, and now admitting that it actually knew of the defect in
20
2001 – 13 years before it reported it to the regulators. GM also admitted for the
21
first time that it redesigned the switch several times, but refused to implement the
22
fix because of an “unacceptable” cost of $0.57 per unit. As former NHTSA head,
23
Joan Claybrook, stated: “This is an immoral act by General Motors to cover up this
24
defect, not tell people and then the result was inevitable, that people were going to
25
die and be injured and that to me is unconscionable. It’s like throwing an airplane
26
passenger out without a parachute.”
27
28
18
COMPLAINT
1
48.
On March 28, 2014, GM recalled an additional 824,000 vehicles for
2
defective ignition switches, bringing the new total of vehicles recalled to 2.2
3
million. This third addition to the list of recalled vehicle includes all model years
4
of the Chevrolet Cobalt and HHR, as well as all model years of the Pontiac G5 and
5
Solstice, and all model years of the Saturn Ion and Sky.
6
7
49.
Frustrated by GM’s continuously-changing story, NHTSA issued a
8
Special Order to the manufacturer to answer 107 written interrogatories, under oath,
9
by April 3, 2014.
GM refused to answer many of the questions, however,
10
prompting NHTSA to fine the company $7,000 per day for its failure to “respond
11
to over a third of the 107 requests.”
12
13
50.
The truth is that GM has a long history of not providing NHTSA with
14
critical safety information on its cars. In July 2013, and before GM admitted to the
15
world that it had been concealing the ignition switch defect, NHTSA requested a
16
meeting with GM to address the company’s responsibilities to the federal
17
regulators. As NHTSA stated in its correspondence to GM, “The general perception
18
is that GM is slow to communicate, slow to act, and, at times, requires additional
19
effort of [NHTSA] that we do not feel is necessary with some of your peers.…
20
There is a general perception in [NHTSA] that GM is one of, if not the worst
21
offender of the regional recall policy.” (Emphasis added).
22
23
C.
Benjamin Hair’s Tragic Death.
51.
Benjamin “Ben” Hair was a standout young citizen, who died
24
25
26
tragically at the age of 20. Ben was the only child of Plaintiffs Gordon Hair (71)
27
and Brenda Hair (64).
28
19
COMPLAINT
1
52.
Ben spent his entire life trying to better himself and his community.
2
He joined the Boy Scouts of America at the age of seven, and remained with the
3
program until he attained the Eagle Scout award at 16 – the highest rank of the Boy
4
Scouting program. Ben was also a champion swimmer. He began swimming at the
5
age of 18 months, and after a lifetime of swim-meets became an accredited Life
6
Guard.
7
8
53.
Ben’s life ambition was to follow his father’s career path of a
9
becoming a Doctor of Pharmacy. Gordon Hair had retired as a pharmacist after
10
working for CVS for 44 years. After graduating from Virginia Tech in just three
11
years, obtaining a B.S. in Biology, Ben enrolled in the Bernard J. Dunn School of
12
Pharmacy at Shenandoah University. While in school, Ben worked at CVS as a
13
certified pharmacy technician.
14
15
54.
All of this changed on a Sunday afternoon on December 13, 2009,
16
when the 2007 Pontiac G5 that Ben’s parents purchased for him uncontrollably
17
went off the road and hit a tree at 50 mph, killing him instantly. Ben was driving
18
down a deserted country road in Charlottesville, Virginia that was two miles from
19
his house – the same road that he had driven every day for nearly five years – when
20
he lost control of his Pontiac G5. Ben was wearing his seatbelt, but as with so many
21
of the recalled vehicles, the airbags failed to deploy. Ben died two weeks before
22
his 21st birthday and just days before Christmas. Photos of Ben are attached as
23
Exhibit 2.
24
25
55.
Initially, the cause of the accident was completely unexplainable.
26
There were no skid marks, there were no other vehicles involved, there were no
27
obvious signs of distress; Ben appeared to have simply lost control of his vehicle
28
on the familiar road, and then made no effort to brake as he hit a tree at 50 mph.
20
COMPLAINT
1
The accident occurred at a slight bend in the road, and the ground was wet from a
2
prior rain, but neither of these factors would have caused the vehicle to simply leave
3
the road, particularly without any skid marks. The posted speed limit was 45 mph.
4
Photos from the accident are attached as Exhibit 3.
5
6
56.
Because accidents like this don’t just happen, Ben’s family and police
7
investigators searched for a cause, but initially were unable to find one. In March
8
2010, however, Gordon Hair and Brenda Hair saw a news report that Ben’s 2007
9
Pontiac G5 had been the subject of a power steering recall. The Hairs travelled to
10
the dealership where they had purchased the vehicle to inquire about the recall, but
11
the dealership knew nothing about it. The dealership told the Hairs that “you can’t
12
believe everything you hear on TV.”
13
14
57.
In September 2010, however, Brenda Hair received a recall notice in
15
the mail that was dated “April 2010,” and which indicated that Ben’s Pontiac G5
16
was in fact being recalled for power steering failure. The recall notice stated, “Your
17
vehicle may have a condition in which a sudden loss of power steering assist could
18
occur at any time while driving the vehicle…. Unless the driver compensates for
19
this additional effort, it may increase the risk of a crash.” This was the first notice
20
that the Hairs had received, other than the news report they saw on television, that
21
Ben’s vehicle was subject to a power steering recall. The power steering recall
22
notice is attached as Exhibit 4.
23
24
58.
After receiving the recall notice in September 2010, Brenda Hair
25
immediately contacted Defendant General Motors LLC and requested that it
26
investigate the accident. Brenda Hair also filed a complaint with NHTSA, and was
27
provided with ODI Number 10358770.
28
21
COMPLAINT
1
59.
Ben’s case was assigned to Sean Kelly at GM. Brenda Hair told Kelly
2
that because the accident occurred in December 2009, and she did not receive the
3
recall notice until September 2010, the car had been crushed. However, she
4
immediately sent Kelly all that she had, which was the police investigation report
5
and photos from the accident scene.
6
60.
7
Unbeknownst to Brenda Hair, however, Ben’s vehicle had, in fact, not
8
been crushed. Rather, the insurance company had sold the car to a salvage yard for
9
parts.
On January 31, 2011, the Hairs’ insurance company (who had been
10
corresponding with GM about the accident after Brenda Hair received the recall
11
notice) sent GM written notice that the vehicle was still available for inspection.
12
Thinking that it was looking for a power steering motor that had failed, the
13
insurance company told Kelly that it had just “reinspected” the vehicle and that
14
there were “no steering parts left.”
15
16
61.
In early February 2011, Sean Kelly told Brenda Hair that he would
17
review all of the information he received with the GM engineers and get back to
18
her. As Kelly stated, “After I receive the file back from engineering, I’ll be in touch
19
with you.”
20
21
62.
On March 23, 2011, seven weeks after stating that GM’s engineers
22
would be fully investigating the accident, Sean Kelly sent Brenda Hair an email that
23
stated in full:
24
25
26
27
28
As I mentioned in my message today, we
have completed our investigation in the Dec.
13, 2009 accident.
Based on all documents received and
reviewed, ESIS, on behalf of General Motors
22
COMPLAINT
LLC, will not be in a position to honor your
request for damages. If you have any
additional evidence that supports your claim
of a product defect, please forward it to my
attention for further review.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
63.
GM then closed its file on Ben’s death. Brenda Hair asked to see a
copy of GM’s findings, but the company stated that the information was
“privileged.” Brenda Hair pleaded with the company to release the information
stating, “This is a slap in my face! How can this be the way you operate? … Please
do the right thing and send me the information I need to come to some sort of closure
about my son’s death.”
64.
To this day, GM still refuses to release its findings. This is because
GM is aware that Ben’s accident was caused by a defective ignition switch installed
on his vehicle, which caused his vehicle to unexpectedly turn off while driving –
disabling his power steering, power brakes and airbags, and causing him to lose
control of the vehicle while rounding a curve on a rainy day.
D.
The Hairs Learn of the Ignition Switch Recall.
65.
In March 2014, Brenda Hair received a new recall notice for Ben’s
Pontiac G5, even though GM was aware that the car had been totaled and was the
subject of a fatality investigation. This recall, which is attached as Exhibit 5, stated:
There is a risk, under certain conditions, that
the vehicle’s ignition switch could move out
of the ‘run’ position, resulting in a partial loss
of electrical power and turning off the engine.
… If the ignition switch is not in the run
position, the airbags may not deploy if the
23
COMPLAINT
vehicle is involved in a crash, increasing the
risk of injury or death.
1
2
Until the recall repairs have been
performed, it is very important that you
remove all items from your key ring,
leaving only the vehicle key.
3
4
5
6
(Emphasis in original).
7
8
9
10
66.
GM Chief Executive, Mary Barra, testified in a Congressional hearing
in April 2014 that when your engine suddenly cuts off when you are driving on the
highway, it presents a “safety issue” that would be “frightening.”
11
12
67.
The recall notice that was sent to Brenda Hair in March 2014 is part of
13
the ignition switch defect that was known by GM since 2001 and willfully
14
concealed from the public and federal regulators.
15
communicating with GM in 2010 and 2011, it knew that the vehicle Ben was driving
16
contained the faulty ignition switch, yet it concealed this material information from
17
her. GM also knew that the circumstances surrounding Ben’s accident – the sudden
18
loss of control of the vehicle for no reason, the absence of skid marks as the vehicle
19
left the road, the non-deployment of airbags – were patterns that it had seen in other
20
vehicles with the defective ignition switch, yet it also concealed this information
21
from her.
When Brenda Hair was
22
23
68.
Most importantly, however, GM knew that when it was corresponding
24
with Brenda Hair in 2010, the vehicle had yet to be crushed, and that it contained
25
an Event Data Recorder that was embedded in the floor of the car. This Event
26
Data Recorder would have captured critical data at the point of impact – including
27
the position of the ignition switch – that could have been used by the Hairs to
28
prosecute their case against GM. Yet despite knowing this, GM said nothing to
24
COMPLAINT
1
Brenda Hair that would have alerted her to the fact that such a device existed in the
2
car. GM also made no effort to inspect the vehicle, to preserve the vehicle, or to
3
retrieve the critical information stored on the Event Data Recorder; and it similarly
4
made no effort to warn Brenda Hair that she should make efforts to preserve the
5
vehicle. Instead, GM remained silent for seven weeks while it met with its
6
engineers, and then simply told Brenda Hair that it had no responsibility for the
7
accident. Until May 2014, the Hairs had no idea that Ben’s vehicle contained an
8
Event Data Recorder, nor could they have discovered that it contained the device
9
through the use of reasonable diligence.
10
11
69.
Incredibly, despite knowing that Ben’s Pontiac G5 has now been
12
crushed and that it was responsible for the loss of the Hairs’ only child, GM
13
continues to send copies of the April 2010 recall notice to Brenda Hair. In an effort
14
to stop the recall notices, Brenda Hair twice traveled to her local GM dealer to have
15
GM stop sending the recall notices. The first time, she met with members of the
16
dealership service department; the second time, she met with three dealership
17
representatives about the issue. When this didn’t stop the recall notices from
18
coming, Brenda Hair went to a different GM dealership and filled out a form to stop
19
the notices. However, this too did not work, and the notices still continue to come,
20
serving as a constant reminder of the horrible connection her family will always
21
have with GM.
22
23
70.
The death of her son has had devastating effects on Brenda Hair.
24
Because the site of the accident is only two miles from the Hairs’ residence, and
25
Brenda must pass the site to go into town, Brenda Hair has become reclusive,
26
refusing to leave her home. In 2013, she gained 50 pounds and only left the house
27
on one occasion. During that same time period, she only got out of bed and dressed
28
25
COMPLAINT
1
herself on two occasions. All of this culminated in Brenda Hair having a stroke on
2
January 9, 2014, leaving her paralyzed.
3
4
71.
Following the death of Ben, Gordon Hair started a foundation in an
5
effort to have his son’s name live on and to have his memory inspire others, called
6
the Benjamin Hair Just Swim For Life Foundation (www.bhjsl.org). Since Brenda
7
Hair’s fall into depression, and now paralysis, Gordon Hair now spends all of his
8
time caring for his wife.
9
10
E.
The Congressional Hearings.
72.
On April 1, 2014, GM chief executive Mary Barra was summoned to
11
12
13
appear before the House Energy and Commerce Oversight and Investigations
14
Subcommittee and testify about the ignition switch cover up. The Subcommittee
15
reviewed more than 200,000 pages of documents, and made the following
16
discoveries:
17
18

GM first recognized the defect in the part in 2001 when it was
developing the 2001 Saturn Ion.

In 2002, the ignition switch supplier, Delphi, informed GM that
the switch did not meet GM’s minimum specifications, but GM
approved it anyway.

During the 2000s, GM received more than 130 warranty claims
from owners about their cars suddenly shutting off – the same
problem experienced by the GM engineers – but did nothing to
inform either the public or Federal safety regulators.

In a 2005 email exchange between Delphi employees and a GM
engineer, the engineer asked for information about the ignition
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
26
COMPLAINT
switch because the “Cobalt is blowing up in their face in regard
to turning the car off with the driver’s knee.”
1
2
3

Later in 2005, GM redesigned the part, but scrapped the project
because “the tooling cost and piece price [were] too high,” and
“none of the solutions represent[ed] an acceptable business
case.” The unacceptable cost increase was $0.57.

Between 2004 and 2013, GM learned of hundreds of reports of
ignition switch problems through customer complaints, warranty
claims, lawsuits, press coverage, field reports and internal
investigations, but did not inform NHTSA of the safety problem.
73.
At the Congressional hearing Barra testified that prior to her becoming
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
CEO on January 15, 2014, she had no personal knowledge of the defect.
Congressman Blackburn asked the question, “So you mentioned in your testimony
that this came to light on your watch, so I am assuming that there was no widespread knowledge in GM about this issue until you became CEO. Am I correct?”
As Barra responded:
17
At the senior level of the company, we
learned of this after the recall decision was
made on January 31st. I was aware in late
December there was analysis going on [with]
the Cobalt issue, but I had no more
information than that. But I can assure you,
as soon as we understood, the senior
leadership understood this issue and that a
recall decision had been made, we acted
without hesitation.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(Emphasis added).
74.
However, recent evidence suggests that Barra falsified her testimony
to Congress. On May 5, 2014 senior GM engineer Jim Federico suddenly retired
27
COMPLAINT
1
from GM after 36 years with the company, and at the age of 56. The official
2
comment by the automaker was that Federico left to “take on new engineering and
3
design challenges outside of the auto industry,” yet it is clear that the company’s
4
top engineer – who was hired by Harley Davidson the very next day – was forced
5
out. The story behind Federico’s departure from GM is enlightening.
6
7
75.
In 2012, Federico was the engineer charged with leading GM’s internal
8
investigation into the Cobalt crisis. Mary Barra testified that she had no knowledge
9
of the Cobalt issue until January 2014, when she became the CEO; however this is
10
questionable, at best. The Plaintiffs have discovered that Jim Federico – the head
11
engineer responsible for investigating the ignition switch defect – reported directly
12
to Barra beginning in February 2011, when she became head of Global Product
13
Development. It is difficult to imagine that Mary Barra would not be apprised of
14
an investigation into a decade-long cover-up that was being handled by her
15
subordinate. Barra failed to disclose any of this information in her testimony before
16
the Congressional Subcommittee in April.
17
18
76.
In response to questioning by the Subcommittee, Barra stated that she
19
was “very disturbed” by what occurred, and told the Subcommittee that GM was
20
conducting a full investigation into what happened. As Barra stated, “When we
21
have answers, we will be fully transparent with you, with our regulators, and with
22
our customers.”
23
commitment to transparency. When asked by Congressman Paul Tonko if GM
24
would share the full results of the investigation, Barra stated that after GM reviewed
25
(and scrubbed) the report, it would make the “appropriate findings” available for
26
review. (Emphasis added).
(Emphasis added).
In truth, however, GM has no such
27
28
28
COMPLAINT
1
77.
Barra also testified that the GM that emerged from bankruptcy in July
2
2009 was “the new GM” – a company with a new set of core values that placed
3
consumers ahead of cost. In response to repeated questioning about the cover-up,
4
Barra stated, “That is not the way we do business in today’s GM…. Today, if there
5
is a safety issue, we take action. If we know there is a defect in our vehicles, we do
6
not look at the cost associated with it. We look at the speed in which we can fix the
7
issue.” However, Barra offered no explanation as to why the new GM didn’t act
8
with that swiftness – or act at all – in the second half of 2009, or 2010, 2011, 2012
9
or 2013, when it had direct knowledge that the ignition switch was defective and
10
causing multiple fatalities. Critically, had new GM acted in the manner she
11
testified, Benjamin Hair would still be alive.
12
13
14
78.
Barra also told the Subcommittee that it would not attempt to use its
2009 bankruptcy filing to shield itself from liability. As Barra stated:
15
We will not shirk from our responsibilities
now or in the future.… Today’s GM will do
the right thing.… As I see it, GM has civil
responsibilities and legal responsibilities ..
.. We will make the best decisions for our
customers, recognizing that we have legal
obligations and responsibilities as well as
moral obligations. We are committed to our
customers, and are going to work very hard
to do the right thing for our customers.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(Emphasis added).
79.
Yet, two weeks after making these statements, GM filed a 67-page
motion in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in New York to have all class action lawsuits that
had been filed against the company for their concealment of the ignition defect
dismissed as a violation of the Bankruptcy Court’s Discharge Order.
29
COMPLAINT
1
2
80.
Barra also had no answer to the question as to why GM was only
3
considering front-impact crashes in its death toll. As Congressman Phil Gingrey
4
stated:
5
Brooke Melton’s tragic death is not
acknowledged as part of this recall because it
involved a side impact instead of a front
impact…. Ms. Barra, if you connect the dots
– I mean, the ignition gets knocked over to
the accessory position. There was a problem
using faulty, even by your own standards,
equipment.… And so maybe what happened
was that all of a sudden the car stalls. She is
driving perfectly, trying to control without
any power steering, without any power
brakes, and may very well have – and I don’t
know the details of that accident – but may
very well have run through a four-way or a
red light and was slammed into from the
side.… Whether it was a head-on collision
or a side collection, it was for the same
reason, and she is dead.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
(Emphasis added).
20
21
81.
Barra concluded her testimony by stating that GM has “rolled out new
22
values with the customer as our compass, relationships matter and individual
23
excellence,” pointing to the fact that it appointed a new Vehicle Safety Chief, Jeff
24
Boyer. Yet, Barra failed to inform the Subcommittee that GM had, in effect, always
25
had this position. In 2011, for instance, while GM was fraudulently concealing this
26
entire scandal, Gay Kent served as the Executive Director of Vehicle Safety and
27
Crashworthiness, charged with essentially the same responsibilities as the new
28
Vehicle Safety Chief. As Kent stated in a December 27, 2011 interview, “Our
30
COMPLAINT
1
safety strategy is about providing continuous protection for our customers before,
2
during and after a crash.”
3
4
COUNT ONE
5
CLAIM FOR WRONGFUL DEATH
6
(By All Plaintiffs Against Defendant General Motors LLC)
7
8
9
82.
Plaintiffs repeat every allegation contained in the paragraphs above
and incorporate such allegations herein by reference.
10
11
83.
On December 13, 2009, 20-year-old Benjamin Hair was killed while
12
driving a 2007 Pontiac G5 that was designed, engineered, manufactured, tested,
13
assembled, marketed, advertised, sold and/or distributed by old GM.
14
15
84.
Defendant General Motors is the successor-in-interest of old GM, and
16
has expressly assumed certain liabilities of old GM under Bankruptcy Code 363,
17
including liability for all death and personal injury caused by their vehicles and the
18
components thereof.
19
20
85.
At all times relevant hereto old GM, and its successor-in-interest,
21
Defendant General Motors, had a duty to use reasonable care in the engineering,
22
design, manufacture, testing, assembly, marketing, advertising, and sale or
23
distribution of its vehicles, including the 2007 Pontiac G5 driven by Benjamin Hair,
24
such that the vehicles would function safely when used for their intended purpose.
25
26
27
86.
Defendant breached this duty of care during and through the events
described above. These breaches include, but are not limited to, the following:
28
31
COMPLAINT
1
a.
Manufacturing the 2007 Pontiac G5 purchased by Plaintiffs
2
Brenda Hair and Gordon Hair and driven by Benjamin Hair with a defective ignition
3
switch;
4
5
b.
Placing the 2007 Pontiac G5 purchased by Plaintiffs Brenda
6
Hair and Gordon Hair and driven by Benjamin Hair, which was known by
7
Defendant to be defective and unreasonably unsafe, into the stream of commerce;
8
9
10
c.
Failing to warn about the defects in the 2007 Pontiac G5
purchased by Plaintiffs Brenda Hair and Gordon Hair and driven Benjamin Hair;
11
12
d.
Failing to recall and repair the 2007 Pontiac G5 purchased by
13
Plaintiffs Brenda Hair and Gordon Hair and driven by Benjamin Hair after
14
discovering the defect; and
15
16
17
e.
Concealing the defect from the Plaintiffs and from the public at
large, and lying about the safety of its products.
18
19
87.
Defendant General Motors’ conduct showed such indifference to
20
others, including Plaintiffs, that it constituted an utter disregard of caution
21
amounting to a complete neglect of the safety of another person. Defendant acted
22
with such indifference that its conduct constitutes gross negligence.
23
24
88.
On December 13, 2009, Benjamin Hair was driving a 2007 Pontiac
25
G5, manufactured by GM, and containing a defective ignition switch. On that day,
26
Ben’s Pontiac G5 inexplicably went off the road and hit a tree at 50 mph, killing
27
him instantly. Ben was driving down a deserted country road in Charlottesville,
28
Virginia that was two miles from his house – the same road that he had driven nearly
32
COMPLAINT
1
every day for five years – when he lost control of his Pontiac G5. Ben was wearing
2
his seatbelt, but as with so many of the recalled vehicles, the airbags failed to
3
deploy.
4
5
89.
Initially, the cause of the accident was completely unexplainable.
6
However, now that GM’s concealment has been revealed, the Plaintiffs understand
7
that Ben’s accident was caused by a defective ignition switch installed on his
8
vehicle. This caused his vehicle to unexpectedly turn off while driving – disabling
9
his power steering, power brakes and airbags, and causing him to lose control of the
10
vehicle while rounding a corner on a rainy day.
11
12
90.
As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s actions, inactions, and
13
negligent and grossly negligent breach of the standard of care, as alleged herein,
14
Decedent Benjamin Hair suffered and died from fatal injuries on or about December
15
13, 2009, while driving a 2007 Pontiac G5 manufactured by GM and containing a
16
defective ignition switch.
17
18
91.
As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s actions, inactions, and
19
negligent and grossly negligent breach of the standard of care, Plaintiffs have
20
suffered damages including, but not limited to, medical, funeral and burial
21
expenses, in an amount to be proven at trial.
22
23
92.
As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s actions, inactions and
24
25
suffered emotional distress, including sorrow, mental anguish, loss of solace, loss
26
of decedent Benjamin Hair’s love, companionship, comfort, care, assistance,
27
protection, affection, society and moral support, in an amount to be proven at trial.
28
33
COMPLAINT
1
93.
As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s actions, inactions and
2
3
suffered pecuniary damages, including loss of financial support and loss of services,
4
in an amount to be proven at trial.
5
6
94.
The conduct of Defendant was fraudulent, malicious and oppressive,
7
such that Plaintiffs are entitled to an award of punitive damages, in an amount to be
8
determined at trial.
9
10
COUNT TWO
11
CLAIM FOR PRODUCTS LIABILITY - NEGLIGENCE
12
13
14
15
95.
Plaintiffs repeat every allegation contained in the paragraphs above
16
17
96.
Defendant designed, engineered, manufactured, tested, assembled,
18
marketed, advertised, sold and/or distributed the 2007 Pontiac G5 purchased by
19
Plaintiffs Brenda Hair and Gordon Hair, and driven by Benjamin Hair.
20
21
97.
Defendant owed a duty to use reasonable care in the design,
22
engineering, testing, assembly, marketing, advertisement, inspection, maintenance,
23
warning, sale and/or distribution of the subject vehicle, to avoid exposing the public
24
and ultimate users, like the Plaintiffs, to a foreseeable risk of harm.
25
26
27
98.
Defendant breached said duty and is liable to the Plaintiffs for one or
more of the following negligent acts and/or omissions:
28
34
COMPLAINT
1
a.
Failing to use due care in the design, engineering, testing,
2
assembly, marketing, advertising, inspection, maintenance, sale and/or distribution
3
of the subject vehicle, and/or to utilize and/or implement reasonably safe designs in
4
the manufacture of the 2007 Pontiac G5 purchased by Brenda Hair and Gordon
5
Hair, registered to Brenda Hair, and driven by Benjamin Hair;
6
7
b.
Placing the subject vehicle into the stream of commerce
8
knowing that it had a propensity to suddenly and unexpectedly shut off while being
9
used in a reasonably foreseeable manner, rendering it hazardous and dangerous for
10
its contemplated and intended use, and thereby presenting an unreasonable risk of
11
serious injury or death;
12
13
c.
Failing to provide adequate and proper warnings of the subject
14
vehicle’s propensity to suddenly and unexpectedly shut off while being used in the
15
manner for which it was intended;
16
17
d.
Failing to incorporate or retrofit the 2007 Pontiac G5 purchased
18
by Brenda Hair and Gordon Hair, registered to Brenda Hair, and driven by
19
Benjamin Hair, with existing, reasonable safeguards and protections against
20
ignition system shut-offs and the consequences flowing therefrom, when used in
21
the manner for which it was intended;
22
23
e.
Failing to adequately prevent, identify, mitigate and fix
24
defective designs and hazards associated with ignition system shut-offs in
25
accordance with good engineering practices;
26
27
28
f.
Failing to notify and warn Benjamin Hair of reported ignition
system shut-offs thus misrepresenting the safety of the 2007 Pontiac G5 purchased
35
COMPLAINT
1
by Brenda Hair and Gordon Hair, registered to Brenda Hair, and driven by
2
Benjamin Hair, and the model subject vehicle generally;
3
4
g.
Failing to make adequate and timely corrections to the
5
manufacture and design of the 2007 Pontiac G5 purchased and registered to Brenda
6
Hair, and driven by Benjamin Hair, and to the model vehicle generally so as to
7
prevent and/or minimize the effects and incidents of the ignition system shut-offs;
8
and,
9
10
h.
Otherwise being careless and negligent.
11
12
99.
As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s actions as alleged
13
herein, Decedent Benjamin Hair suffered and died from fatal injuries on or about
14
December 13, 2009, while driving a 2007 Pontiac G5 manufactured by GM.
15
16
17
100. Defendant’s actions as alleged herein were a substantial factor in
causing Brenda Hair and Gordon Hair’s damages and Benjamin Hair’s death.
18
19
20
101. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s actions, the Plaintiffs
are entitled to damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
21
22
102. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s actions, inactions, and
23
negligent and grossly negligent breach of the standard of care, Plaintiff Brenda Hair
24
and Gordon Hair have suffered damages including medical, funeral and burial
25
expenses for Benjamin Hair, in an amount to be proven at trial.
26
27
103. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s actions, Plaintiff
28
Brenda Hair and Gordon Hair have suffered emotional distress, including sorrow,
36
COMPLAINT
1
mental anguish, loss of solace, loss of decedent Benjamin Hair’s love,
2
companionship, comfort, care, assistance, protection, affection, society and moral
3
support, in an amount to be proven at trial.
4
5
104. The conduct of Defendant was fraudulent, malicious and oppressive,
6
7
8
9
COUNT THREE
10
CLAIM FOR PRODUCTS LIABILITY – NEGLIGENT DESIGN
11
12
13
14
105. Plaintiffs repeat every allegation contained in the paragraphs above
15
16
106. Defendant designed, engineered, manufactured, tested, assembled,
17
marketed, advertised, sold and/or distributed the 2007 Pontiac G5 purchased and
18
registered to Brenda Hair, and driven by Benjamin Hair.
19
20
21
107. Defendant was under a duty to exercise ordinary care to design a
product that was reasonably safe for the purpose for which it was intended.
22
23
108. Defendant failed to perform such duty.
24
25
109. Defendant’s negligence in failing to design a reasonably safe product
26
was the direct and proximate cause of Gordon Hair and Brenda Hair’s damages,
27
and Benjamin Hair’s death.
28
37
COMPLAINT
1
2
110. Brenda Hair, Gordon Hair and the Estate of Benjamin Gordon Hair are
therefore entitled to damages in an amount to be proven at the time of trial.
3
4
5
negligent and grossly negligent breach of the standard of care, Plaintiffs Brenda
6
Hair and Gordon Hair have suffered damages including medical, funeral and burial
7
expenses for Benjamin Hair, in an amount to be proven at trial.
8
9
112. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s actions, Plaintiffs
10
11
12
13
14
15
COUNT FOUR
16
CLAIM FOR PRODUCTS LIABILITY –
17
FAILURE TO WARN
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
38
COMPLAINT
1
115. Defendant knew or had reason to know that the 2007 Pontiac G5
2
purchased and registered to Brenda Hair, and driven by Benjamin Hair, was, or was
3
likely to be, dangerous for the use for which it was supplied.
4
5
6
116. Defendant had no reason to believe that those for whose use the
product was supplied would realize its dangerous condition.
7
8
117. Defendant failed to exercise reasonable care to inform unsuspecting
9
consumers, including Brenda Hair and Benjamin Hair, of the dangerous condition
10
or of facts which made the vehicle likely to be dangerous.
11
12
118. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s actions as alleged
13
14
15
16
17
119. Defendant’s negligent failure to warn was the direct and proximate
cause of the Plaintiffs’ injuries.
18
19
20
120. The Plaintiffs’ are therefore entitled to damages in an amount to be
proven at the time of trial.
21
22
23
breach of the standard of care, Plaintiff Brenda Hair and Gordon Hair have suffered
24
damages including medical, funeral and burial expenses for Benjamin Hair, in an
25
amount to be proven at trial.
26
27
28
39
COMPLAINT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
COUNT FIVE
10
CLAIM FOR PRODUCTS LIABILITY –
11
FAILURE TO RECALL
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
126. Defendant owed a continuing duty to use due care to remedy known
defects affecting the safety of its vehicles.
23
24
127. Defendant breached that duty by failing to conduct an adequate
25
recall/retrofit campaign upon learning of the defects associated with the 2007
26
Pontiac G5 purchased and registered to Brenda Hair, and driven by Benjamin Hair.
27
28
40
COMPLAINT
1
128. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s actions as alleged
2
3
4
5
129. Defendant’s failure to recall and retrofit the 2007 Pontiac G5
6
purchased and registered to Brenda Hair, and driven by Benjamin Hair, was the
7
direct and proximate cause of the Plaintiffs’ injuries.
8
9
10
130. The Plaintiffs’ are therefore entitled to damages in an amount to be
proven at the time of trial.
11
12
13
breach of the standard of care, Plaintiff Brenda Hair and Gordon Hair have suffered
14
damages including medical, funeral and burial expenses for Benjamin Hair, in an
15
amount to be proven at trial.
16
17
18
Brenda Hair has suffered emotional distress, including sorrow, mental anguish, loss
19
of solace, loss of decedent Benjamin Hair’s love, companionship, comfort, care,
20
assistance, protection, affection, society and moral support, in an amount to be
21
proven at trial.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
41
COMPLAINT
1
COUNT SIX
2
CLAIM FOR NEGLIGENCE PER SE
3
(By The Estate of Benjamin Gordon Hair Against
4
Defendant General Motors LLC)
5
6
7
8
9
135. Pursuant to Code of Federal Regulations § 573.6, auto manufacturers
10
are required to notify NHTSA within 5 business days of a safety defect in its
11
vehicles, or face a fine of up to $35 million.
12
13
14
136. Defendant had a duty to adhere to this Federal Regulation and report
to NHTSA any known safety defect in its vehicles within 5 days of its discovery.
15
16
137. In mid-2013, GM engineers Gary Altman and Ray DeGorgio admitted
17
under oath that GM knew of an ignition switch problem with their vehicles since
18
2004. Thus, pursuant to these federal regulations, GM was required to report the
19
ignition switch defect to NHTSA at least as far back as 2004, if not earlier.
20
21
138. Defendant breached its duty to Plaintiffs, and the public at large, when
22
it waited until February 7, 2014 – 13 years after it discovered the ignition switch
23
problem – to inform NHTSA that it was aware of a major safety defect with its
24
ignition switch.
25
26
27
139. Federal Regulations § 573.6 was enacted to protect a class of people
to which Plaintiff belongs.
28
42
COMPLAINT
1
140. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s actions and inactions
2
as alleged herein, Decedent Benjamin Hair suffered and died from fatal injuries on
3
or about December 13, 2009, while driving a 2007 Pontiac G5 manufactured by
4
GM containing a concealed defective ignition switch.
5
6
7
141. Defendant’s violation of Federal Regulation § 573.6 was a substantial
factor in bringing about the serious harm and injury that Plaintiff has suffered.
8
9
142. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s acting in a manner that
10
violated Federal Regulations, the Estate of Benjamin Gordon Hair has suffered
11
damages in an amount to be proven at the time of trial.
12
13
COUNT SEVEN
14
CLAIM FOR BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY
15
(By Plaintiffs Gordon Hair and Brenda Hair
16
Against Defendant General Motors LLC)
17
18
19
20
21
22
144. The subject vehicle was sold and supplied to Brenda Hair by
Defendant.
23
24
145. Defendant expressly warranted to the public, and to Brenda Hair, that
25
the subject vehicle could be used safely, for the purpose normally incident to its
26
use, namely transportation.
27
28
43
COMPLAINT
1
2
146. Brenda Hair relied on such warranties in purchasing and allowing her
son to continue to use the subject vehicle.
3
4
147. The vehicle sold to and supplied to Brenda Hair was not as warranted.
5
Such breach of warranty included, but was not limited to the defective vehicle
6
ignition system prone to shut off during normal operations causing the steering and
7
braking systems to malfunction and the airbag (supplemental restraining system) to
8
become disabled.
9
10
11
148. Defendant knew or should have known that the subject vehicle did not
operate as warranted.
12
13
14
149. As a result of the failure of the vehicle to operate as warranted, Brenda
Hair’s son, Benjamin Hair, was killed while driving the vehicle.
15
16
17
150. The failure of the subject vehicle to be as represented was a substantial
factor in causing Brenda Hair’s harm.
18
19
20
151. Brenda therefore entitled to damages in an amount to be proven at the
time of trial.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
44
COMPLAINT
1
COUNT EIGHT
2
CLAIM FOR BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF
3
MERCHANTABILITY
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
marketed, advertised, sold and/or distributed the subject vehicle.
12
13
14
154. The subject vehicle was sold and supplied to Brenda Hair by and
through Defendant.
15
16
155. Pursuant to the Uniform Commercial Code, Defendant implied a
17
warranty of merchantability concerning the subject vehicle that it was fit for the
18
ordinary purposes for which such goods are used.
19
20
21
156. The product sold by Defendant and supplied to Brenda Hair was not
of merchantable quality in that:
22
23
a.
The product was unreasonably dangerous; and,
b.
The unreasonably dangerous condition existed when the goods
24
25
26
left Defendant’s hands.
27
28
45
COMPLAINT
1
2
157. As a result of the failure of the subject vehicle to have the expected
quality, Brenda Hair’s son, Benjamin Hair, was killed while driving the vehicle.
3
4
5
158. The failure of the subject vehicle to have the expected quality was a
substantial factor in causing harm to Brenda Hair.
6
7
8
159. Brenda Hair is therefore entitled to damages in an amount to be proven
at the time of trial.
9
10
COUNT NINE
11
CLAIM FOR FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT
12
13
14
15
16
17
161. As detailed in paragraphs 18 through 37 above, old GM and its
18
successor-in-interest, Defendant General Motors, actively concealed important
19
facts from Plaintiffs, and the public at large. Specifically, for more that thirteen
20
years, Defendant actively concealed from Plaintiffs, and from the public at large,
21
that millions of its vehicles, including the 2007 Pontiac G5 purchased by Plaintiffs
22
Brenda Hair and Gordon Hair and driven by Benjamin Hair, contained a deadly
23
safety defect.
24
25
26
marketed, advertised, sold and/or distributed the subject vehicle with a defective
27
ignition system installed.
28
46
COMPLAINT
1
163. Despite knowing that millions of their vehicles, including the 2007
2
Pontiac G5 purchased by Plaintiffs Brenda Hair and Gordon Hair and driven by
3
Benjamin Hair, contained a deadly ignition switch defect, Defendant concealed the
4
defect from Plaintiffs, and the public at large, as follows:
5
6
a.
In September and October 2001, GM designed a fix to the
7
deadly ignition switch defect. However, after designing the fix, GM rejected the
8
redesign because of cost, allowing vehicles to be built with the defective part,
9
concealing the defect from the public and knowingly putting a vehicle into the
10
stream of commerce that it knew would shut off while in use.
11
12
13
b.
In 2003, GM began receiving complaints from consumers about
their vehicles suddenly shutting off, yet did nothing to correct the problem.
14
15
c.
GM then began developing other low-cost vehicles using the
16
same ignition switch that was in the Saturn Ion, despite knowing the switch was
17
defective.
18
19
d.
In 2004, GM engineers again witnessed problems with their
20
vehicles unexpectedly shutting off. As one engineer commented in a 2005 email,
21
“I was very aware of an issue with ‘inadvertent ignitions offs’ due to the low
22
mounted ignition switch in the steering column and the low efforts required to rotate
23
the ignition.” Nevertheless, GM concealed the defect from the public and allowed
24
vehicles to be built with the defective part, and placed in the hands of unsuspecting
25
consumers.
26
27
28
e.
On November 19, 2004, after its vehicles were already being
sold in dealerships throughout the country, GM opened an engineering inquiry to
47
COMPLAINT
1
further examine the ignition switch defect. Thereafter, GM engineers met to
2
consider solutions to the ignition switch problem, but instead issued a directive to
3
close the inquiry with no action.
4
5
f.
Following the decision to not fix the defective switch, GM
6
continued to receive complaints from customers about their vehicles suddenly
7
shutting off. As one internal email stated, “[t]here are many reports of that
8
condition for 2005-07.”
9
10
11
g.
On May 24, 2005, GM opened another inquiry because of
“[c]ustomer concern that the vehicle ignition will turn off while driving.”
12
13
h.
Four months after the May 2005 engineering inquiry was
14
opened, GM engineers designed yet another fix for the defective ignition switch.
15
However, “[a]fter consideration of the lead time required, cost, and effectiveness of
16
each of these solutions, the [investigation] was closed with no action.”
17
18
i.
In September 2005, GM opened its first legal file on a fatality
19
caused by the ignition key failure. This still did not compel GM to approve the part
20
redesign. Instead, in December 2005 GM issued a one-page Service Bulletin to its
21
dealers instructing them to install a snap-on key cover for customers who
22
complained of the problem. Inexplicably, the Service Bulletin only related to some
23
of the vehicles that contained the defective switch. It would take GM nearly another
24
year – until October 2006 – to amend the Service Bulletin to include the additional
25
models affected.
26
27
28
j.
By 2007, GM had knowingly and maliciously placed over one
million vehicles on U.S. highways that were manufactured with the defective
48
COMPLAINT
1
ignition switch. While the defect was well known to GM engineers and upper
2
management, the company concealed it from the buying public. Hence, consumers
3
such as the Hairs never knew, nor could have known, of the deadly defect.
4
k.
5
During the 2000s and prior to the relevant events that occurred
6
on December 13, 2009, GM received at least 130 warranty claims from owners
7
about their cars suddenly shutting off but did nothing to inform the public or Federal
8
Safety Regulators, exposing the public to mortal danger.
9
l.
10
As consumers began to die or suffer serious injury, GM
11
systematically tracked the events, creating secret database files for ignition switch
12
accidents. In these files, GM would made notes to specific customers’ files
13
regarding fatalities, paralysis, brain injury and/or stitches.
14
m.
15
Incredibly, when consumers began asserting claims against GM
16
for accidents caused by the vehicles, GM uniformly told the families that it had “no
17
responsibility” for the death and injuries caused by its products. Instead of taking
18
responsibility for its actions, GM attempted to intimidate the families into
19
dismissing their claims, in some instances going so far as to threaten the families
20
with malicious prosecution if they did not drop their claims.
21
22
164. On December 13, 2009, 20-year-old Benjamin Hair was killed while
23
driving a 2007 Pontiac G5 that was manufactured by General Motors and that
24
contained the defective ignition switch.
25
26
165. At the time of his death, General Motors had still failed to notify the
27
public, or the Plaintiffs, of the deadly ignition switch defect contained in their
28
vehicles.
49
COMPLAINT
1
2
166. In September 2010, after Ben’s death, Brenda Hair received a recall
3
notice in the mail that was dated “April 2010,” and which indicated that Ben’s
4
Pontiac G5 was being recalled for power steering failure.
5
6
167. After receiving the recall notice in October 2010, Brenda Hair
7
immediately contacted General Motors and requested that it investigate Ben’s
8
accident. Brenda Hair also filed a complaint with NHTSA.
9
10
11
168. Upon learning of Ben’s death, General Motors took steps to conceal
its defective ignition switch from Benjamin Hair’s grieving family, as follows:
12
13
a.
Ben’s case was assigned to Sean Kelly at GM. In early February
14
2011, Sean Kelly told Brenda Hair that he would review all of the information he
15
received regarding Ben’s accident with the GM engineers and get back to her.
16
17
b.
GM failed to inform Brenda Hair of the ignition switch defect
18
contained in the vehicle driven by Ben. Instead, on March 23, 2011, seven weeks
19
after stating that GM’s engineers would be fully investigating the accident, Sean
20
Kelly sent Brenda Hair an email denying any responsibility for Ben’s accident. GM
21
then closed its file on Ben’s death.
22
23
c.
Brenda Hair has asked to see a copy of GM’s findings, but the
24
company stated that the information was “privileged.” Despite Brenda Hair’s
25
repeated requests, to this day, GM still refuses to release its findings.
26
27
28
d.
Incredibly, throughout this entire period, General Motors knew
that the vehicle Ben was driving contained the faulty ignition switch, yet it
50
COMPLAINT
1
concealed this material information from Plaintiffs.
GM also knew that the
2
circumstances surrounding Ben’s accident – the sudden loss of control of the
3
vehicle for no reason, the absence of skid marks as the vehicle left the road, the non-
4
deployment of airbags – were patterns that it had seen in other vehicles with the
5
defective ignition switch, yet it also concealed this information from her.
6
e.
7
GM also knew when it was corresponding with Brenda Hair in
8
2010, that the Hairs’ vehicle contained an Event Data Recorder – a “black box” of
9
sorts – embedded in the floor of the car. This Event Data Recorder would have
10
captured critical data at the point of impact – including the position of the ignition
11
switch – that could have been used by the Hairs to prosecute their case against GM.
12
Despite knowing this, GM made no effort to inspect the vehicle, to preserve the
13
vehicle, or to retrieve the critical information stored on the Event Data Recorder;
14
and it similarly made no effort to warn Brenda Hair that she should make efforts to
15
preserve the vehicle. Instead, GM remained silent for seven weeks, and then simply
16
told Brenda Hair that it had no responsibility for the accident.
17
18
169. At the time it was purportedly investigating its role in Benjamin Hair’s
19
death, General Motors was actively concealing from Plaintiffs, and from the public
20
at large, material facts, including the fact that millions of GM’s vehicles were placed
21
in the stream of commerce containing a deadly ignition switch defect.
22
23
24
170. Plaintiffs did not know of these concealed facts, nor could they have
reasonably discovered them through the use of due diligence.
25
26
171. Had Plaintiffs Brenda Hair and Gordon Hair known of these concealed
27
facts, they would not have purchased the 2007 Pontiac G5 for their son, Benjamin
28
Hair.
51
COMPLAINT
1
2
3
172. Had Benjamin Hair known of these concealed facts, he would not have
driven the 2007 Pontiac G5.
4
5
173. General Motors intended to deceive Plaintiffs, and the public at large,
6
into believing that their vehicles were safe for driving by concealing these material
7
facts.
8
9
174. Plaintiffs reasonably relied upon Defendant’s deception in purchasing
10
and continuing to operate a defective, unreasonably dangerous vehicle, which
11
dangerous condition was unknown to them. Had the omitted information been
12
disclosed, Plaintiffs would have been aware of it and would have acted differently.
13
14
175. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s acts of concealment as
15
alleged herein, Decedent Benjamin Hair suffered and died from fatal injuries on or
16
about December 13, 2009, while driving a 2007 Pontiac G5 manufactured by GM.
17
18
176. Defendant’s concealment was a substantial factor in Plaintiffs’ harm
19
in that, but for Defendant’s deception, Brenda Hair and Gordon Hair would not have
20
purchased the 2007 Pontiac G5, and Benjamin Hair would not have continued to
21
operate the unreasonably dangerous vehicle. As such, on December 13, 2009,
22
Benjamin Hair would not have been driving a vehicle with a defective ignition
23
system prone to shutting off during normal operations, and would be alive today.
24
25
26
177. As a result of Defendant’s misrepresentations, Plaintiffs were injured
and suffered damages.
27
28
52
COMPLAINT
1
2
178. Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to damages in an amount to be proven
at the time of trial.
3
4
179. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s actions, the Plaintiffs
5
have suffered emotional distress, including sorrow, mental anguish, loss of solace,
6
loss of decedent Benjamin Hair’s love, companionship, comfort, care, assistance,
7
protection, affection, society and moral support, in an amount to be proven at trial.
8
9
10
11
12
13
COUNT TEN
14
CLAIM FOR VIOLATION OF THE VIRGINIA
15
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT OF 1977
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
182. In or about 2007, Plaintiff Brenda Hair and Gordon Hair purchased a
23
2007 Pontiac G5 that was manufactured by General Motors for her son, Benjamin
24
Hair. The sale of the vehicle to Brenda Hair was a “consumer transaction” as
25
defined in Section 59.1-198 of the Code of Virginia; the vehicle constitutes “goods”
26
as defined in Section 59.1-198 of the Code of Virginia; General Motors is a
27
“supplier” as defined in Section 59.1-198 of the Code of Virginia; and Plaintiffs
28
53
COMPLAINT
1
Brenda Hair and Gordon Hair are “persons” as defined in Section 59.1-198 of the
2
Code of Virginia.
3
4
183. In the course of the transactions involving the sale of the 2007 Pontiac
5
G5, General Motors engaged in the following unfair and/or deceptive practices in
6
violation of Section 59.1-200A of the Code of Virginia:
7
a.
8
9
10
General Motors misrepresented that the 2007 Pontiac G5 had
certain characteristics or benefits, in violation of Section 59.1-200A.5, namely
misrepresenting that the vehicle was safe for use;
11
b.
12
General Motors misrepresented that the 2007 Pontiac G5 was of
13
a particular standard, quality, grade, style or model, in violation of Section 59.1-
14
200A.6, namely misrepresenting that the vehicle was safe for use;
15
c.
16
General Motors used deception, fraud, false pretense, false
17
promise, or misrepresentation in connection with a consumer transaction, in
18
violation of Section 59.1-200A.14, namely, fraudulently representing and
19
misrepresenting to the public that the vehicle was safe for use, all the while knowing
20
that the vehicle contained a deadly ignition switch defect.
21
22
184. On information and belief, General Motors intended that Plaintiffs
23
Brenda Hair and Gorrdon Hair rely upon the above-described misrepresentations
24
and omissions.
25
26
185. As a result of General Motors fraud, misrepresentations and omissions,
27
Plaintiffs Brenda Hair and Gordon Hair been damaged in an amount to be proven
28
at trial.
54
COMPLAINT
1
2
186. The above-described actions were committed by General Motors
3
wilfully, wantonly and with reckless disregard of the rights of Plaintiffs Brenda Hair
4
and Gordon Hair, and as such violate Sections 59.1-200A.5, 6 and 14, and entitle
5
Brenda Hair and Gordon Hair to seek recover of three times her actual damages,
6
plus attorney’s fees and costs, pursuant to Section 29.1-204 of the Code of Virginia.
7
8
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray that the Court award them:
9
10
Count One
11
1.
Compensatory damages;
12
2.
Emotional distress and loss of society damages;
13
3.
Pecuniary damages;
14
4.
Punitive damages.
15
16
Count Two
17
1.
18
2.
19
3.
Pre-judgment interest as allowed by Virginia statute;
20
4.
Punitive damages.
21
22
Count Three
23
1.
24
2.
25
3.
Pre-judgment interest as allowed by Virginia statute.
26
27
28
55
COMPLAINT
1
Count Four
2
1.
3
2.
4
3.
5
4.
Punitive damages.
6
7
Count Five
8
1.
9
2.
10
3.
11
4.
Punitive damages.
12
13
Count Six
14
1.
Compensatory damages.
15
16
Count Seven
17
1.
18
19
Count Eight
20
1.
21
22
Count Nine
23
1.
24
2.
25
3.
Punitive damages.
26
27
28
56
COMPLAINT
1
Count Ten
2
1.
3
2.
Treble damages pursuant to Code of Virginia Section 29.1-204;
4
3.
Attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to Code of Virginia Section 29.1204.
5
6
7
All Causes of Action
8
1.
Costs of suit.
9
2.
All other relief the Court deems necessary and proper.
10
11
MLG AUTOMOTIVE LAW, APLC
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Dated: May 21, 2014
By:
_____________/S/______________
Jonathan A. Michaels, Esq.
Matthew S. Grayson, Esq.
Ashley D. Rose, Esq
Attorneys for Plaintiffs,
Gordon Hair and Brenda Hair, individually,
and Gordon Hair and Brenda Hair, as coAdministrators of the Estate of Benjamin
Hair
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
57
COMPLAINT
JURY DEMAND
1
2
3
Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury on all triable issues.
4
5
MLG AUTOMOTIVE LAW, APLC
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Dated: May 21, 2014
By:
_____________/S/______________
Jonathan A. Michaels, Esq.
Matthew S. Grayson, Esq.
Ashley D. Rose, Esq
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Gordon Hair and Brenda Hair, individually,
and Gordon Hair and Brenda Hair, as coAdministrators of the Estate of Benjamin
Hair
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
58
COMPLAINT

Untitled - MLG Automotive Law

Transcription

Similar documents

SF]ELF F1 ELP

ORGANIC ROOT STIMULATOR Carrot Oil

Salon Product

Gooch Hair Gum

here - Women`s ROGAINE

Featured on Style Me Pretty - Black Tie at Goodstone Inn

Bridal Hair, Kenra Style

Dry Twist Out 101

Easter 2016 Flyer-Digital-FINAL

a facial fo r yo ur h air