Porsche coolant pipes allegedly leak coolant due to defective epoxy.

Posted in News

Porsche Coolant Pipe Lawsuit Dismissed
Porsche coolant pipes allegedly leak coolant due to defective epoxy.

— A Porsche coolant pipe lawsuit has been dismissed after two Porsche owners failed to convince the judge there are defects that cause coolant leaks and failed engines.

Plaintiffs Santiago Padilla and Murray Shames allege Porsche sold 2010-2016 Porsche Panamera and 2011-2019 Porsche Cayenne vehicles with defective epoxy adhesive used to join coolant pipes to the thermostat housings.

According to the plaintiffs, the problem occurs when the epoxy adhesive degrades, loosens and eventually fails due to the contraction and expansion of coolant pipes caused by repeated heating and cooling over time.

The coolant pipes allegedly separate from the thermostat housings, causing coolant leaks and overheated engines that allegedly fail without warning. In addition, leaking coolant creates slippery road conditions.

In 2013, Padilla purchased a used Porsche Panamera, but in 2014 the vehicle allegedly suddenly overheated while driving after the epoxy adhesive failed and the coolant pipes separated from the thermostat housing.

The plaintiff says Porsche failed to warn him about the problems when he purchased the vehicle even though the automaker allegedly knew the truth about the pipes.

In July 2014, Shames bought his used Cayenne S, but in April 2016 the coolant pipe allegedly separated from the thermostat housing due to the epoxy adhesive.

The same problem reoccurred on his Cayenne S in September 2017, so Shames wrote to Porsche in May 2018 after he learned through an internet search the problem appeared to be common in Porsche vehicles.

Shames told Porsche that there was a problem that kept occurring with the cooling system and it appeared the cause was a hose glued to the engine. Shames alleges Porsche "knew the truth" about the coolant pipes but failed to warn him when he purchased the used vehicle.

After Porsche refused to reimburse Shames (because the repairs occurred outside the warranty period), Shames traded-in his used Cayenne S at a loss.

The judge had dismissed the initial lawsuit because both plaintiffs purchased used Porsche vehicles more than four years before filing their lawsuit, violating the statute of limitations.

The judge also found fraudulent concealment allegations were not sufficient to toll the statute of limitations on their Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act claim.

In dismissing the lawsuit one last time, the judge ruled the plaintiffs do not allege any precise statements, documents or misrepresentations made by Porsche or how such statements misled the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs do references statements related to correspondence with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), but the disclosures are public and are the opposite of fraudulent concealment.

The judge also noted the plaintiffs tried twice to argue Porsche “publicly represented” and “admitted the problem was fixed in January 2008," but that goes beyond the allegations in the coolant pipe lawsuit.

The Porsche coolant pipe lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida - Padilla, et al., v. Porsche Cars North America, Inc.

The plaintiffs are represented by Morgan & Morgan, Blood Hurst & O'Reardon, and Ray Boucher.

CarComplaints.com has owner-reported complaints about the Porsche Cayenne and the Porsche Panamera.


Become a Fan & Spread the Word