consolidated in the South Carolina-based MDL focused on pollution involving the chemicals in aqueous film- forming foam used in firefighting applications. On March 29, 2024, the court granted final settlement approval of $10.3 billion in In Re Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Product Liability Litigation , MDL 2873 (D.S.C. Mar. 29, 2024), to resolve claims with 3M by utilities that maintain it is liable for the damage they have and will incur due to its signature PFAS that were used for decades in specialized fire suppressants, called aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF), that were sprayed directly into the environment and reached drinking water. While the plaintiffs’ bar has been filing lawsuits for nearly a decade over alleged health and environmental consequences associated with PFAS, as of late the types of plaintiffs and defendants have evolved in this rapidly expanding landscape. III. Key Rulings On Product Liability Class Certification Motions 1. Rulings Granting Class Certification Motions In Speerly, et al. v. General Motors, LLC , 343 F.R.D. 493 (E.D. Mich. 2023), the plaintiffs filed several class actions alleging defective “shudder and shift” problems in the defendant's 8L45 and 8L90 8-speed automatic transmissions used in cars sold between the 2015 and 2019 model years. Id. at 495. The plaintiffs alleged that the automatic transmissions in their vehicles occasionally will "slip, buck, kick, jerk and harshly engage,” which caused the vehicles to perform erratically and become unsafe to drive. Id. at 500. The plaintiffs filed several suits on behalf of putative classes, including the owners of thousands of vehicles that alleged their vehicle have defective transmissions, and the defendant refused to fix or replace them under its express warranty. The plaintiffs filed motions to certify 26 different state-wide classes, and the court granted the motions. The district court found that the class clearly met the numerosity requirement, as there were more than 800,000 class vehicles. It found that the commonality requirement was also met because all the plaintiffs alleged some type of warranty and consumer fraud claims. The district court stated that even if the plaintiffs alleged a variety of different legal theories under 26 different state laws, they all related to claims of warranty and consumer fraud, and the proof of vehicle defect would be the same for all the claims. The district court also reasoned that the vehicles were all covered by the same warranty, and thus, whether the transmissions were covered by the warranty would be a question common to all class members. The defendant argued that the plaintiffs’ damages plan to calculate damages on an average basis would be an individual determination for each class member such that class treatment would not be appropriate. However, the district court concluded that the calculations need not be exact at the class certification stage, as long as the model to calculate the damages was consistent in establishing liability. For these reasons, the district court thereby found that common issued predominated and that a class action would be the superior method of adjudication. Accordingly, the it granted the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. On appeal, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling in Speerly, et al. v. General Motors, LLC , 115 F.4th 680 (6th 2024). The Sixth Circuit found no reason to reverse the district court's decision to certify the class. The defendant had argued that most of the class members had never experienced the transmission issues, and therefore lacked standing as they were not injured by the claims. The Sixth Circuit rejected the defendant’s argument. It reasoned that the plaintiffs’ claim of having overpaid for defective vehicles was enough to establish standing. The Sixth Circuit also ruled that the district court did not abuse its discretion in certifying the class, even though certain states required that plaintiffs have actually experienced the defect in order to bring a claim. The Sixth Circuit noted that if the plaintiffs could prove a universal defect affecting vehicle safety, they could satisfy the state-specific requirements. The Sixth Circuit further suggested that the class could be split into sub-groups if necessary later in the case. The Sixth Circuit concluded that any legal variations would be unlikely to hinder the case at this stage and can be addressed later if necessary. The Sixth Circuit agreed with the district court’s conclusion that individualized issues did not outweigh common questions and affirmed the ruling granting the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. On December 19, 2024, the Sixth Circuit agreed to rehear the case en banc in Speerly v. GM, LLC, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 32179 (6th Cir. Dec. 19, 2024). The Sixth Circuit agreed to revisit the case after the defendant requested a rehearing, arguing that the Sixth Circuit’s decision conflicted with precedent by deferring the determination of class-wide issues like commonality and predominance to a later stage of litigation.
5
© Duane Morris LLP 2025
Products Liability & Mass Torts Class Action Review – 2025
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online