— A Subaru windshield lawsuit won't be dismissed as a federal judge ruled the plaintiffs have enough evidence to move their claims forward.
The original lawsuit would have included Subaru Legacy and Outback owners nationwide, but the class-action now includes people who purchased or leased any 2015-2016 Subaru Outback or Legacy only in California.
According to the lawsuit, the vehicles have defective windshields that crack and chip, something Subaru knew about long ago but tried to conceal.
Some owners report their windshields crack for no reason, while others say the smallest impact causes cracks and chips, something that wouldn't occur if the windshields weren't defective.
According to the lawsuit, Subaru basically admitted the windshields have problems because Subaru started using a new “enhanced” windshield in 2015.
Subaru also said it would extend the warranty of 3 years/36,000 miles to 5 years/unlimited miles for front windshield failure, but the plaintiffs claim the warranty extension was limited to vehicles that had damage to the lower deicer areas of the windshield.
The plaintiffs further allege Subaru denied valid warranty claims. and in cases where the windshields were replaced with "enhanced" windshields the same defective windshields were installed.
The windshield lawsuit alleges many owners never received warranty extensions even though the windshields were defective, allegedly an intentional action by Subaru to save money on repairs.
Subaru filed a motion to dismiss the complaint but failed on every count. On the charge of fraud, the plaintiffs allege the windshields pose “an extreme safety hazard to drivers, passengers, and pedestrians” due to the risk of shattering or cracking. In addition, owners say the windshields won't hold in a rollover crash.
Those allegations were good enough for the judge to allow claims against Subaru based upon fraudulent omissions.
Subaru next contends express warranty claims fail because they require an owner to notify the company and give it an opportunity to comply with a warranty before the consumer may sue over breach of warranty.
However, the judge ruled the primary named plaintiff said she sent a pre-litigation demand letter to Subaru and the letter is enough to satisfy the notice requirements for express warranty claims.
The judge also found implied warranty claims against Subaru were sufficient to show the plaintiffs had a contractual relationship with the automaker as the manufacture/distributor of the vehicles.
Subaru, on the other hand, had argued the plaintiffs had purchased their vehicles from dealerships, so the relationships were with those dealerships, not Subaru.
The Subaru windshield lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division - Lucia Luong, et. al., v. Subaru of America, Inc.
The plaintiff is represented by Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP.
CarComplaints.com has complaints about the Subaru Legacy and Outback vehicles named in the lawsuit.