— General Motors has told a federal judge an Ultium electric vehicle charger class action lawsuit should be unplugged because the plaintiffs have tried to "pull the wool over the Court’s eyes."
Florida plaintiffs Rick Kriseman and Kerry Kriseman complain they purchased a defective GM Ultium PowerUP electric vehicle charger from a Florida Cadillac dealer in 2024.
According to the class action lawsuit, the GM Ultium charger owned by the plaintiffs contains an internal circuit breaker that trips, stopping the charging of their vehicle. The plaintiffs complain they must flip their home circuit breaker to restart the charging of their vehicle.
The lawsuit further alleges the charger can overheat and gets so hot the car alarm is activated.
The GM Ultium charger lawsuit includes:
"All persons who purchased—in Florida and either directly from General Motors (GM) or from a GM authorized store and/or dealership—a 2022, 2023, or 2024 model year Ultium PowerUP charger."
GM Ultium Charger Lawsuit — Motion to Dismiss
According to GM, the lawsuit shouldn't be in court because the GM Ultium charger is covered by a limited warranty, something GM says the plaintiffs have totally ignored in their class action.
GM also notes since the original class action was filed, the plaintiffs have now dropped all their claims except the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act claim.
But GM alleges that one remaining claim should be tossed because the plaintiffs "do not, and could never, allege a reasonable consumer would have relied on statements or omissions that are expressly disclaimed by GM’s limited warranty."
The automaker also told the judge the GM charger class action references a technical service bulletin that does not exist. GM contends Warranty Administration Bulletin 22-NA-215 is just that, a bulletin with information about the Ultium charger warranty.
But GM argues since the plaintiffs never reference the Ultium charger warranty, they incorrectly call the document a "technical service bulletin."
That Ultium PowerUp charger warranty allegedly includes valid limitations on the lawsuit's claims.
The motion to dismiss also asserts the plaintiffs fail to include any specific misrepresentation of fact or any omission made by GM. This supposedly requires dismissal of the fraud-based claim because the plaintiffs purportedly do not name a single fraudulent statement or omission.
The lawsuit does argue GM advertises its Ultium charger as "suitable," but the automaker says this is nothing more than "nonactionable puffery" under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.
And while the class action describes symptoms of a charger problem, the automaker argues the plaintiffs do not allege what defect caused the symptoms.
In a recent action about the lawsuit, GM failed to convince the judge to send the allegations to arbitration.
The GM Ultium charger class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida (Tampa Division): Kriseman, et al., v. General Motors, LLC.
The plaintiffs are represented by Morgan & Morgan.
