throbber
Case 2:22-cv-02227-KM-JSA Document 1 Filed 04/15/22 Page 1 of 213 PageID: 1
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
`
`
`
`Case No. _
`
`
`
`
`
`ROLLIE BUCHANAN, DAVIN
`CARD, KIM AND FRED MARTIN
`FERGUSON, KEVIN FLYNN,
`PHILIPPE GEYSKENS, ROBERT
`HOFFMAN, ERIC and MARIELA
`KOTOUN, ARTHUR KRICHEVSKY,
`ELSIE SAKS, STEVEN SALHANICK,
`MARK SILBER, ROBERT and TONI
`TUBBE, and DONNA URBEN,
`individually and on behalf of all others
`similarly situated,
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`Volvo Car USA, LLC, Volvo Cars of
`North America, LLC, and Volvo
`Personvagnar AB, et al.,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Plaintiffs Rollie Buchanan, Davin Card, Kim and Fred Martin
`1.
`Ferguson, Kevin Flynn, Philippe Geyskens, Robert Hoffman, Eric and Mariela
`Kotoun, Arthur Krichevsky, Elsie Saks, Steven Salhanick, Mark Silber, Robert and
`Toni Tubbe, and Donna Urben (“Plaintiffs”) bring this action for themselves and on
`behalf of all similarly situated persons ("Class Members") in the United States who
`purchased or leased any 2013-2016 Volvo vehicle equipped with 2.0L 4-cylinder or
`2.5L 5-cylinder engines (“Class Vehicles”) against Volvo Car USA, LLC
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-02227-KM-JSA Document 1 Filed 04/15/22 Page 2 of 213 PageID: 2
`
`(“VCUSA”), Volvo Cars of North America, LLC (“VCNA”), and Volvo
`Personvagnar AB (“Volvo AB”) (collectively "Volvo" or "Defendants"). The
`allegations herein are based on personal knowledge as to Plaintiffs' own experiences
`and are made as to other matters based on an investigation by counsel, including
`analysis of publicly available information.
`This is a consumer class action concerning a failure to disclose material
`2.
`facts and a safety concern to consumers.
`Defendant Volvo AB designed and manufactured the Class Vehicles,
`3.
`Defendant VCUSA imported, manufactured, distributed and marketed the Class
`Vehicles, and Defendant VCNA imported, distributed, warranted, marketed, and
`sold the Class Vehicles through its extensive network of authorized dealerships in
`the United States. Defendant VCNA also provides service and maintenance for the
`Class Vehicle at dealers and service providers nationwide, and trains dealers and
`services providers, using information provided by Volvo AB.
`Defendants sold, directly or indirectly, through their agent dealers and
`4.
`other retail outlets, the Class Vehicles throughout the United States, without
`disclosing that the Class Vehicles were equipped with defective 2.0L 4-cylinder or
`2.5L 5-cylinders engines (“Subject Engines”).
`Volvo wrongfully and intentionally concealed a defect in the design,
`5.
`manufacture, and/or workmanship of the piston rings and/or pistons/piston heads in
`the Subject Engines. Here, the piston rings cannot properly clear engine oil off the
`side of the cylinder wall during the downstroke and instead push that oil up where it
`can coat the top of the piston head, enter the combustion chamber, and ignite (“Piston
`2
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-02227-KM-JSA Document 1 Filed 04/15/22 Page 3 of 213 PageID: 3
`
`Defect” or “Defect”). Specifically, the oil control ring, the lowest ring on the piston,
`is defective and does not properly allow the oil from the cylinder wall to drain. Over
`time, this continual burning of oil damages the piston rings and piston heads,
`allowing even more oil to ignite, further destroying the piston head, the cylinder
`head and other engine components. It also causes the vehicle to lose power, both
`incrementally over time and catastrophically at one time, because some of the
`oxygen usually ignited in the combustion chamber which powers the vehicle is being
`used to burn the excess oil in the cylinder, and as the piston head and cylinder head
`become damaged, power generated by the combustion is dissipated rather than being
`used to spin the crankshaft to power the vehicle.
`The Piston Defect causes the engine to consume an excessive amount
`6.
`of oil because the pistons are pushing oil from the cylinder up into the combustion
`chamber. It also causes the pistons and the engine itself to fail because the pistons
`and other engine components that require oil to minimize friction are not adequately
`lubricated. The Piston Defect also results in the shrapnel of the fragments of the
`piston rings, as they degrade, and/or minute fragments of the piston head, to circulate
`throughout the engine, damaging other engine components. For example, cylinder
`scoring, which results in even more oil loss, is a frequent result of the Piston Defect.
`As a result of the Piston Defect, Plaintiffs and Class Members incur out of pocket
`costs to repair or replace the damaged engine parts or their entire engine. A
`replacement of the piston rings and/or pistons costs thousands of dollars, and the
`cost for replacing a Subject Engine is well over $10,000.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-02227-KM-JSA Document 1 Filed 04/15/22 Page 4 of 213 PageID: 4
`
`The Piston Defect in the Subject Engines also presents a safety risk for
`7.
`Plaintiffs and Class Members, because when a piston or pistons suddenly and
`unexpectedly fail, the Class Vehicles immediately lose engine power. A sudden loss
`of power poses a clear-cut safety risk - it can prevent the driver from accelerating,
`maintaining speed, engaging the brakes and even adequately controlling the steering
`wheel, all of which drastically increase the risk of collisions, and puts other drivers,
`passengers and pedestrians in danger.
`The Piston Defect also causes substantial damage. In addition to
`8.
`destroying critical engine components, it causes further damage throughout the
`powertrain of the Class Vehicles as shards of the pistons, piston heads and/or piston
`rings are circulating throughout the engine and fuel system.
`By way of explanation, in internal combustion engines, the piston is a
`9.
`fast-moving metal component contained within a cylinder. Piston rings attached at
`the piston head make the piston gas-tight. A piston's purpose is to transfer force from
`expanding gas in the cylinder to the crankshaft via a piston rod and/or connecting
`rod. In most, if not all, mass produced internal combustion car engines, the intake,
`compression, combustion and exhaust processes take place above the piston in the
`cylinder head, which forces the piston to move up and down within the cylinder,
`thereby causing the crankshaft to turn. The piston is subjected to tremendous forces
`and heat during normal engine operation.
`10. Specifically, the piston rings and/or piston heads in the Class Vehicles'
`Subject Engines are defective in that they cause excessive oil consumption and
`crack, fracture, or splinter. The damage to the pistons causes immediate loss of
`4
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-02227-KM-JSA Document 1 Filed 04/15/22 Page 5 of 213 PageID: 5
`
`compression within the engine cylinder and causes the remnants of the pistons to
`circulate throughout the fuel system of the Class Vehicles. These failures often occur
`before the engine reaches 75,000 miles, resulting in a lifespan well short of the class
`members' expectations and the industry standard for similar engines. In fact, the
`Subject Engines were designed to reach a minimum of 200,000 miles of use with
`proper maintenance. As such, the integral engine components such as the piston
`rings and piston heads, are designed and expected to last the lifetime of the engine.
`11. The Piston Defect is inherent in each Class Vehicle and was present at
`the time of sale.
`12. Volvo undertook affirmative measures to conceal the Piston Defect
`through, among other things, Technical Journals ("TJs") that VCNA issued to its
`authorized repair facilities (but not to the class members themselves).
`13. Volvo was sufficiently aware of the Piston Defect from: pre-production
`testing; design failure mode analysis; aggregate purchases of replacement piston
`rings, pistons, and engines; class member calls to its customer service hotline; and
`customer complaints made directly to its agent dealers. However, this knowledge
`and information was exclusively in the possession of Volvo and its network of
`dealers who are Defendants' agents for repairs and, therefore, unavailable to
`consumers.
`14. The Piston Defect is material because it poses a serious safety concern.
`As attested by Class Members in scores of complaints to the National Highway
`Traffic Safety Administration (“NHTSA”), and other online forums, the Piston
`Defect can impair any driver's ability to control his or her vehicle and greatly
`5
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-02227-KM-JSA Document 1 Filed 04/15/22 Page 6 of 213 PageID: 6
`
`increase the risk of collision, and puts other drivers, passengers and pedestrians in
`danger.
`15. The Piston Defect is also material because consumers incur significant
`and unexpected repair costs. Volvo’s failure to disclose, at the time of purchase, the
`pistons' marked tendency to fail is material because no reasonable consumer expects
`to spend hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars to repair or replace essential engine
`components expected to last much longer than 75,000 miles of use.
`16. Had Volvo disclosed the Piston Defect, Plaintiffs and Class Members
`would not have purchased the Class Vehicles or would have paid less for them.
`
`PARTIES
`
`Plaintiff Rollie Buchanan
`17. Plaintiff Rollie Buchanan is a citizen of New York, domiciled in
`
`Jamaica, New York.
`
`18. On or about November 15, 2018, Plaintiff Buchanan purchased a
`
`certified pre-owned 2015 Volvo S60 equipped with a 2.0L 4-cylinder engine with
`
`engine code B4204T12 with approximately 34,500 miles on the odometer from Karp
`
`Volvo Cars, an authorized Volvo dealership located in Rockville Centre, New York.
`
`19. Plaintiff Buchanan purchased his vehicle primarily for personal, family,
`
`or household use.
`
`20. Passenger safety and reliability were important factors in Plaintiff
`
`Buchanan’s decision to purchase his vehicle. Before purchasing the vehicle,
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-02227-KM-JSA Document 1 Filed 04/15/22 Page 7 of 213 PageID: 7
`
`Plaintiff Buchanan conducted general research including on the CarMax and Kelly
`
`Blue Book websites, viewed dealer advertisements and the dealership’s website,
`
`reviewed the Monroney sticker (the “window sticker”) which listed the 2.0L engine
`
`as a component, reviewed the sales documentation including a CarFax report, and
`
`spoke to the authorized salesperson at the dealership. Plaintiff Buchanan also took
`
`the vehicle for a test drive. Plaintiff Buchanan selected and ultimately purchased his
`
`Class Vehicle because the vehicle was represented to be, and was marketed as, a
`
`high-quality vehicle capable of providing safe, reliable transportation. The purchase
`
`was made in part on the advertised safety, reliability, and quality of the vehicle and
`
`its components, including its engine.
`
`21. None of the information provided to Plaintiff Buchanan disclosed any
`
`defects in the vehicle or its engine. Volvo’s omissions were material to Plaintiff
`
`Buchanan.
`
`22. Had Volvo disclosed its knowledge of the Piston Defect before he
`
`purchased his vehicle, Plaintiff Buchanan would have seen and been aware of the
`
`disclosures. Indeed, Volvo’s misstatements and omissions were material to Plaintiff
`
`Buchanan. Like all members of the Class, Plaintiff Buchanan would not have
`
`purchased his Class Vehicle, or would have paid less for the vehicle, had he known
`
`of the Piston Defect.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-02227-KM-JSA Document 1 Filed 04/15/22 Page 8 of 213 PageID: 8
`
`23.
`
`In addition, at the time of Plaintiff Buchanan’s vehicle purchase, and in
`
`purchasing his vehicle, he relied upon Volvo and its authorized dealerships’
`
`representations which he heard from the salesperson and in advertisements, that the
`
`vehicle was fully functional, safe, durable, reliable, and that the engine operated
`
`correctly and effectively. Plaintiff Buchanan relied on those representations and the
`
`omission of, or failure to disclose, the Piston Defect, in purchasing the vehicle, and
`
`absent those representations and omissions, would not have purchased the vehicle,
`
`or would have paid less for it.
`
`24. At the time of his purchase, Plaintiff Buchanan received from Volvo
`
`several warranties, including: (1) the remainder of the bumper-to-bumper limited
`
`warranty lasting for four years or 50,000 miles, whichever occurred first; and (2) a
`
`limited certified pre-owned warranty lasting seven years or 100,000 miles,
`
`whichever occurred first.
`
`25. At all times during his possession of the vehicle, Plaintiff Buchanan has
`
`properly maintained and serviced his Class Vehicle according to Volvo’s
`
`recommended maintenance guidelines.
`
`26.
`
`In the summer of 2020, Plaintiff Buchanan first observed the low oil
`
`light illuminating in his vehicle. He began to add oil as needed and indicated by the
`
`vehicle.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-02227-KM-JSA Document 1 Filed 04/15/22 Page 9 of 213 PageID: 9
`
`27.
`
`In November 2020, Plaintiff Buchanan brought his vehicle to McGuire
`
`Volvo Cars, an authorized Volvo dealership located in Ithaca, New York. The
`
`dealership completed the 50,000 miles service on the vehicle at that time.
`
`28.
`
`In the summer of 2021, the low oil light began to illuminate in his
`
`vehicle again frequently. While helping his brother purchase a car from CarMax,
`
`Plaintiff Buchanan was informed that his vehicle and others like it had an oil
`
`consumption problem.
`
`29. On or about September 23, 2021, Plaintiff Buchanan called Volvo Cars
`
`of North America (“VCNA”) to complain about the Piston Defect in his vehicle.
`
`VCNA arranged for his vehicle to be inspected at McGuire Volvo.
`
`30. Soon after, Plaintiff Buchanan brought his vehicle to McGuire Volvo.
`
`At the time, his vehicle had approximately 60,900 miles on the odometer. Plaintiff
`
`Buchanan specifically requested an oil consumption test, per his conversation with
`
`the VCNA representative. He was instead only given a quote for an oil consumption
`
`test and told to make an appointment for a test.
`
`31. Plaintiff Buchanan returned his vehicle to the dealership approximately
`
`a week later in October 2021 for the oil consumption test and additional service on
`
`his vehicle. Instead, the dealership claimed that they had no knowledge of an oil
`
`consumption test. Plaintiff Buchanan allowed the dealership to perform some
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-02227-KM-JSA Document 1 Filed 04/15/22 Page 10 of 213 PageID: 10
`
`service on the vehicle, but did not authorize any engine work. Despite that, the
`
`dealership changed the oil in his vehicle without his consent.
`
`32. Plaintiff Buchanan’s vehicle continues to experience the Piston Defect
`
`and he has not received a repair to his vehicle despite requesting the repair within
`
`the time limitations of his certified pre-owned warranty.
`
`33. To date, Plaintiff Buchanan’s vehicle remains subject to the Piston
`
`Defect and he puts a quart of oil into the car every 300 to 400 miles driven.
`
`34. As a result of the Piston Defect, Plaintiff Buchanan has lost confidence
`
`in the ability of his Class Vehicle to provide safe and reliable transportation for
`
`ordinary and advertised purposes. Further, Plaintiff Buchanan will be unable to rely
`
`on Volvo’s advertising or labeling in the future, and so will not purchase or lease
`
`another vehicle from Volvo in the future, though he would like to do so.
`
`35. At all times, Plaintiff Buchanan, like other class members, has
`
`attempted to drive his vehicle in a manner that was both foreseeable and in which it
`
`was intended to be used. At all times, he has not abused his vehicle or used it for
`
`purposes unintended by Volvo such as drag racing, for example. The Piston Defect
`
`has rendered his vehicle unsafe and unfit to be used as Volvo intended.
`
`Plaintiff Davin Card
`
`36. Plaintiff Davin Card is a citizen of New York, domiciled in
`
`Schenectady, New York.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-02227-KM-JSA Document 1 Filed 04/15/22 Page 11 of 213 PageID: 11
`
`37. On or about May 10, 2019, Plaintiff Card purchased a used 2016 XC90
`
`equipped with a 2.0L 4-cylinder engine with engine code B4204T27 with
`
`approximately 71,467 miles on the odometer from Mercedes Benz of Lancaster, a
`
`dealership located in East Petersburg, Pennsylvania.
`
`38. Plaintiff Card purchased his vehicle primarily for personal, family, or
`
`household use.
`
`39. Passenger safety and reliability were important factors in Plaintiff
`
`Card’s decision to purchase his vehicle. Before purchasing the vehicle, Plaintiff
`
`Card conducted general research including on the Kelly Blue Book website,
`
`reviewed dealer advertisements and the dealership’s website, reviewed the
`
`Monroney sticker (the “window sticker”) which listed the 2.0L engine as a
`
`component, reviewed the sales documentation including a CarFax report, and spoke
`
`to the authorized salesperson at the dealership. Plaintiff Card also took the vehicle
`
`for a test drive. Plaintiff Card selected and ultimately purchased his Class Vehicle
`
`because the vehicle was represented to be, and was marketed as, a high-quality
`
`vehicle capable of providing safe, reliable transportation. The purchase was made
`
`in part on the advertised safety, reliability, and quality of the vehicle and its
`
`components, including its engine.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-02227-KM-JSA Document 1 Filed 04/15/22 Page 12 of 213 PageID: 12
`
`40. None of the information provided to Plaintiff Card disclosed any
`
`defects in the vehicle or its engine. Volvo’s omissions were material to Plaintiff
`
`Card.
`
`41. Had Volvo disclosed its knowledge of the Piston Defect before he
`
`purchased his vehicle, Plaintiff Card would have seen and been aware of the
`
`disclosures. Indeed, Volvo’s misstatements and omissions were material to Plaintiff
`
`Card. Like all members of the Class, Plaintiff Card would not have purchased his
`
`Class Vehicle, or would have paid less for the vehicle, had he known of the Piston
`
`Defect.
`
`42.
`
`In addition, at the time of Plaintiff Card’s vehicle purchase, and in
`
`purchasing his vehicle, he relied upon Volvo’s communications including the
`
`window sticker that the vehicle was fully functional, safe, durable, reliable, and that
`
`the engine operated correctly and effectively. Plaintiff Card relied on those
`
`representations and the omission of, or failure to disclose, the Piston Defect, in
`
`purchasing the vehicle, and absent those representations and omissions, would not
`
`have purchased the vehicle, or would have paid less for it.
`
`43. At all times during his possession of the vehicle, Plaintiff Card has
`
`properly maintained and serviced his Class Vehicle according to Volvo’s
`
`recommended maintenance guidelines.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-02227-KM-JSA Document 1 Filed 04/15/22 Page 13 of 213 PageID: 13
`
`44. When the vehicle had approximately 85,000 miles on the odometer, in
`
`2020, the low oil light illuminated in Plaintiff Card’s vehicle. Shortly thereafter, on
`
`or about March 2, 2020, he took the vehicle to Capital Volvo, an authorized Volvo
`
`dealership located in Albany, New York. The dealership recommended an oil
`
`consumption test.
`
`45. The dealership performed an oil consumption test, by changing the oil
`
`in Plaintiff Card’s vehicle and directing to him return after 1,000 were driven.
`
`Plaintiff Card returned after driving 1,000 miles, on approximately December 15,
`
`2020. At that time, the dealership informed him that his vehicle was consuming oil
`
`and a piston ring replacement was needed, costing over $5,000. He was also charged
`
`a diagnostic fee of $300.
`
`46. Plaintiff Card asked for the dealership or Volvo to cover the repair cost,
`
`due to the fact that this was a known issue with a repair designed by Volvo. He was
`
`first asked to provide proof that his vehicle had been serviced regularly, because he
`
`had gotten a single oil change at an independent shop. Plaintiff Card promptly
`
`provided this proof, but had to wait over a month before he received a response from
`
`the dealership.
`
`47. After months of working with the dealership to have Volvo cover the
`
`repair, Plaintiff Card eventually reached out to VCNA directly to request coverage
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-02227-KM-JSA Document 1 Filed 04/15/22 Page 14 of 213 PageID: 14
`
`for the repair via email or about June 1, 2021. By that time, the vehicle had been
`
`sitting at Capital Volvo for approximately six weeks.
`
`48. On June 3, 2021, VCNA informed Plaintiff Card that it would cover
`
`half the cost of the repair. Plaintiff Card requested more coverage, because this was
`
`a known issue to Volvo and because he had been a twenty-year customer of Volvo
`
`cars. VCNA denied his request shortly thereafter.
`
`49. Plaintiff Card ultimately was charged approximately $3,200 for the
`
`piston ring replacement in his vehicle.
`
`50. To date, Plaintiff Card’s vehicle remains subject to the Piston Defect
`
`and the damage the Defect had done to his vehicle.
`
`51. As a result of the Piston Defect, Plaintiff Card has lost confidence in
`
`the ability of his Class Vehicle to provide safe and reliable transportation for
`
`ordinary and advertised purposes. Further, Plaintiff Card will be unable to rely on
`
`Volvo’s advertising or labeling in the future, and so will not purchase or lease
`
`another vehicle from Volvo in the future, though he would like to do so.
`
`52. At all times, Plaintiff Card, like other class members, has attempted to
`
`drive his vehicle in a manner that was both foreseeable and in which it was intended
`
`to be used. At all times, he has not abused his vehicle or used it for purposes
`
`unintended by Volvo such as drag racing, for example. The Piston Defect has
`
`rendered his vehicle unsafe and unfit to be used as Volvo intended.
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-02227-KM-JSA Document 1 Filed 04/15/22 Page 15 of 213 PageID: 15
`
`Plaintiffs Kim and Fred Martin Ferguson
`53. Plaintiffs Kim Ferguson and Fred Martin Ferguson (“Fergusons”) are
`citizens of South Carolina, domiciled in Chapin, South Carolina.
`54. On or about March 20, 2015, Plaintiffs Fergusons purchased a New
`2015 Volvo XC60 equipped with a 2.0L 4-cylinder engine with engine code
`B4204T11 from Dick Dyer and Associates, an authorized Volvo dealership located
`in Columbia, South Carolina.
`55. Plaintiffs Fergusons purchased their vehicle primarily for personal,
`family, or household use.
`56. Passenger safety and reliability were important factors in Plaintiffs
`Fergusons’ decision to purchase their vehicle. Before purchasing the vehicle,
`Plaintiffs Fergusons reviewed Volvo commercials, researched the vehicle generally
`on Google, reviewed the Monroney sticker (the “window sticker”) which listed the
`2.0L engine as a component, visited the dealership’s and manufacturer’s website,
`and spoke to the authorized salesperson at the dealership. Plaintiffs Fergusons also
`took the vehicle for a test ride. Plaintiffs Fergusons selected and ultimately
`purchased their Class Vehicle because the vehicle was represented to be, and was
`marketed as, a high-quality vehicle capable of providing safe, reliable transportation.
`The purchase was made in part on the advertised safety, reliability, and quality of
`the vehicle and its components, including its engine.
`57. None of the information provided to Plaintiffs Fergusons disclosed any
`defects in the vehicle or its engine. Volvo’s omissions were material to Plaintiffs
`Fergusons.
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-02227-KM-JSA Document 1 Filed 04/15/22 Page 16 of 213 PageID: 16
`
`58. Had Volvo disclosed its knowledge of the Piston Defect before they
`purchased their vehicle, Plaintiffs Fergusons would have seen and been aware of the
`disclosures. Indeed, Volvo’s misstatements and omissions were material to Plaintiffs
`Fergusons. Like all members of the Class, Plaintiffs Fergusons would not have
`purchased their Class Vehicle, or would have paid less for the vehicle, had they
`known of the Piston Defect.
`In addition, at the time of Plaintiffs Fergusons’ vehicle purchase, and
`59.
`in purchasing their vehicle, they relied upon Volvo and its authorized dealerships’
`representations, dealership website, commercials, heard from the salesperson, and
`reviewed on the Monroney sticker, that the vehicle was fully functional, safe,
`durable, reliable, and that the engine operated correctly and effectively. Plaintiffs
`Fergusons relied on those representations and the omission of, or failure to disclose,
`the Piston Defect, in purchasing the vehicle, and absent those representations and
`omissions, would not have purchased the vehicle, or would have paid less for it.
`60. At the time of their purchase, Plaintiffs Fergusons’ received from Volvo
`several warranties, including: (1) bumper-to-bumper limited warranty lasting for
`four years or 50,000 miles, whichever occurred first; and (2) maintenance warranty
`lasting three years or 36,000 miles, whichever occurred first.
`61. At all times during their possession of the vehicle, Plaintiffs Fergusons
`have properly maintained and serviced their Class Vehicle according to Volvo’s
`recommended maintenance guidelines.
`62. When the vehicle had approximately 65,000 miles on the odometer, the
`low oil level light began to illuminate frequently. Twice, Plaintiff Kim Ferguson
`16
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-02227-KM-JSA Document 1 Filed 04/15/22 Page 17 of 213 PageID: 17
`
`took the vehicle to Dick Dyer and Associates, where the dealership merely added
`oil. After, when the vehicle had 76,781 miles on the odometer, in June 2020,
`Plaintiffs Fergusons returned their vehicle to the dealership for a formal diagnostic.
`At that time, the dealership recommended a piston repair and quoted approximately
`$6,000 for that repair. Plaintiff Kim Ferguson spoke to the technician who worked
`on her vehicle, who informed her that there “is not a recall yet” for her vehicle and
`that she could simply continue driving the car and adding oil as needed as an
`alternative to the repair. Plaintiff Kim Ferguson was worried about these
`recommendations and contacted Volvo Cars of North America, LLC. A customer
`service representative recommended that she return to the dealership and monitor
`the oil level. Plaintiffs Fergusons began adding oil every 1,000 miles driven. In
`December 2021, their vehicle flashed a warning about an engine performance
`problem. They took their vehicle to Taylor’s Auto Service, a local mechanic, and
`discovered that the valves in their engine were burnt and that the engine was failing.
`Plaintiffs Fergusons paid approximately $7,000 to replace the engine in their vehicle.
`In January 2022, the engine performance problem message again flashed on the
`vehicle’s dashboard. Plaintiffs Fergusons returned their vehicle to the mechanic,
`who added oil and called Dick Dyer and Associates for a recommendation. The
`authorized Volvo dealership recommended Plaintiff Kim Ferguson sell the car.
`63. To date, Plaintiffs Fergusons’ vehicle remains subject to the Piston
`Defect.
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-02227-KM-JSA Document 1 Filed 04/15/22 Page 18 of 213 PageID: 18
`
`64. As a result of the Piston Defect, Plaintiffs Fergusons have lost
`confidence in the ability of their Class Vehicle to provide safe and reliable
`transportation for ordinary and advertised purposes.
`65. At all times, Plaintiffs Fergusons, like other class members, have
`attempted to drive their vehicle in a manner that was both foreseeable and in which
`it was intended to be used. At all times, they have not abused their vehicle or used it
`for purposes unintended by Volvo such as drag racing, for example. The Piston
`Defect has rendered their vehicle unsafe and unfit to be used as Volvo intended
`Plaintiff Kevin Flynn
`66. Plaintiff Kevin Flynn is a citizen of Massachusetts, domiciled in
`Springfield, Massachusetts.
`67. On or about October of 2013, Plaintiff Flynn purchased a new 2013
`Volvo S60 equipped with a 2.5L 5-cylinder engine with engine code B5254T12 from
`Fathers and Son Volvo, an authorized Volvo dealership located in West Springfield,
`Massachusetts.
`68. Plaintiff Flynn purchased his vehicle primarily for personal, family, or
`household use.
`69. Passenger safety and reliability were important factors in Plaintiff
`Flynn’s decision to purchase his vehicle. Before purchasing the vehicle, Plaintiff
`Flynn conducted general online research using search engines such as Google and
`Kelley Blue Book, visited the dealership’s websites, reviewed the Monroney sticker
`(the “window sticker”) which listed the 2.5L engine as a component, reviewed the
`sales documentation, and spoke to the authorized salesperson at the dealership.
`18
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-02227-KM-JSA Document 1 Filed 04/15/22 Page 19 of 213 PageID: 19
`
`Plaintiff Flynn also took the vehicle for a test drive. Plaintiff Flynn selected and
`ultimately purchased his Class Vehicle because the vehicle was represented to be,
`and was marketed as, a high-quality vehicle capable of providing safe, reliable
`transportation. The purchase was made in part on the advertised safety, reliability,
`and quality of the vehicle and its components, including its engine.
`70. None of the information provided to Plaintiff Flynn disclosed any
`defects in the vehicle or its engine. Volvo’s omissions were material to Plaintiff
`Flynn.
`71. Had Volvo disclosed its knowledge of the Piston Defect before he
`purchased his vehicle, Plaintiff Flynn would have seen and been aware of the
`disclosures. Indeed, Volvo’s misstatements and omissions were material to Plaintiff
`Flynn. Like all members of the Class, Plaintiff Flynn would not have purchased his
`Class Vehicle, or would have paid less for the vehicle, had he known of the Piston
`Defect.
`In addition, at the time of Plaintiff Flynn’s vehicle purchase, and in
`72.
`purchasing his vehicle, he relied upon Volvo and its authorized dealerships’
`representations which he heard from the salesperson, viewed on the dealership’s
`websites, and commercials, that the vehicle was fully functional, safe, durable,
`reliable, and that the engine operated correctly and effectively. Plaintiff Flynn relied
`on those representations and the omission of, or failure to disclose, the Piston Defect,
`in purchasing the vehicle, and absent those representations and omissions, would not
`have purchased the vehicle, or would have paid less for it.
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-02227-KM-JSA Document 1 Filed 04/15/22 Page 20 of 213 PageID: 20
`
`73. At the time of his purchase, Plaintiff Flynn received from Volvo several
`warranties, including: (1) bumper-to-bumper limited warranty lasting for four years
`or 50,000 miles, whichever occurred first; and (2) maintenance warranty lasting
`three years or 36,000 miles, whichever occurred first.
`74. At all times during his possession of the vehicle, Plaintiff Flynn has
`properly maintained and serviced his Class Vehicle according to Volvo’s
`recommended maintenance guidelines.
`In December 2020, when the vehicle had approximately 60,000 miles
`75.
`on the odometer, Plaintiff Flynn was driving on the Massachusetts Turnpike when
`the “no oil” light illuminated on the dashboard. This immediately prompted Plaintiff
`Flynn to pull over and check his engine oil. He discovered that his engine indeed
`had no oil in it. He borrowed a colleague’s car to purchase 2 quarts of oil for his
`vehicle, and then drove his vehicle to Fathers and Sons Volvo for diagnosis and
`repair. The dealership did not diagnose or repair the vehicle, but instead
`recommended that he increase the frequency of oil changes from 10,000 mile
`intervals, as per the vehicle’s manuals, to 5,000 mile intervals.
`76. Plaintiff Flynn followed the dealership’s instructions and took his
`vehicle to the dealership for oil changes every 5,000 miles. In 2021, when the vehicle
`had less than 80,000 miles on the odometer, Plaintiff Flynn took his vehicle to the
`dealership for another oil change. The technician recommended replacing the piston
`rings in his vehicle, a repair which would cost thousands of dollars because it
`requires the engine to be torn down and rebuilt.
`
`
`
`20
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-02227-KM-JSA Document 1 Filed 04/15/22 Page 21 of 213 PageID: 21
`
`77. Plaintiff Flynn has since taken his vehicle for diagnosis and
`maintenance to an independent mechanic who has significant experience with
`Volvos. There, Plaintiff Flynn was informed that the oil consumption issue is a
`known problem in Volvos. Plaintiff Flynn has spent $500 in extra oil changes d

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket