New Lawsuit targets Ford and Mach-E Safety over high voltage battery main contactor issue

[Mach1E]

Exactly. Ford has been 100% standing behind the warranty for people who have had this failure and replacing the part as needed.

The issue is that as part of the recall, Ford chose not to replace the part for everyone with a better part on a proactive basis, instead creating a software update that will (apparently) prevent failure and instead tell the owner to get the vehicle serviced soon. When the owner goes in for service, then they will get the new part under warranty. It's very likely that under this approach many, if not most people, would never get a new part. There is also the possibility/concern for a hidden performance impact as a result of this software update.

Many people are upset at this approach because they feel this potential part failure will be hanging over their head while they go about driving the Mach-E and don't want any performance limitation, if one has, in fact, been implemented (it is unknown). Instead of this software update fix, these people believe Ford should announce a recall where they proactively replace everyone's existing hardware with a more durable part.

Yup, this sums it up well.

Add this to the fact that now we know Ford is using weaker parts and is likely a reason for the 5 second limit.

Plus I have a theory that the recall has actually INCREASED the amount of failures.

We have had multiple failures posted here in just a couple weeks post recall when only a small amount have had the recall.

My math is probably off on the exact number, but either way this seems statistically significant-

In over a year- 6-10 forum members had HVJB failure.

In the last few weeks- 2-4 failed post recall.

That seems way worse!

Sponsored

 

[ElleD]

Which, to me, is absolute BS. I don't care how much it costs Ford. It is their mistake and I will possibly pay for it with my time and inconvenience on a 70,000 vehicle. Can I bill them my normal hourly rate for every minute I spend dealing with this issue if/when it happens? Of course not.

Absolutely love the car, but this is the first and last Ford I will ever buy based on their handling of this situation.

Exactly. I rely on this car to get me to work and back home. My clients rely on my being at work so that I can help them get their deals done in a timely manner. There are millions of dollars riding on each deal. Being stranded on the side of the road for how many hours until the right tow truck shows up is not acceptable. I’m in the energy industry and support energy traders, there is zero tolerance for this kind of situation. I would be facing a very unhappy boss (and his boss) and clients, to the detriment of my career. I have no one that I could call to help me in this kind of a situation. I would have to call an Uber and abandon my car. Then what?

The irony is that I bought this car to replace an aging outback so that I would not be stranded. I am a first time Ford buyer and this is the most expensive car I’ve ever bought. Must I face being stranded before getting a effective fix to a known design flaw? Ford needs to make this right, they know the part is defective. Not a good impression, Ford.

 

[Ride_the_lightning]

Yup, this sums it up well.

Add this to the fact that now we know Ford is using weaker parts and is likely a reason for the 5 second limit.

Plus I have a theory that the recall has actually INCREASED the amount of failures.

We have had multiple failures posted here in just a couple weeks post recall when only a small amount have had the recall.

My math is probably off on the exact number, but either way this seems statistically significant-

In over a year- 6-10 forum members had HVJB failure.

In the last few weeks- 2-4 failed post recall.

That seems way worse!

It’s possible that the software is identifying failures earlier, before they weld. If so, that would explain seeing more cases. They could have additional resistance across their contactors, for weeks or months, and previously wouldn’t haven’t known until they failed completely and welded open.

edit: damn autocorrect changing contactor to contractor.

 

[Mach1E]

It’s possible that the software is identifying failures earlier, before they weld. If so, that would explain seeing more cases. They could have additional resistance across their contactors, for weeks or months, and previously wouldn’t haven’t known until they failed completely and welded open.

edit: damn autocorrect changing contactor to contractor.

Sure it’s possible. But either way, the end result is more failures (cars in the shop) it seems. Not enough data yet, but it seems that was so far.

 

[Solares]

It’s amazing how they do advance math with wattages, Amps, resistance ect. To some how calculate the risk of welding.
But giving us that Frunk opener… Yea..

 

[Dondan]

You will get very little out of it. Meanwhile, those three will take ~2/3 of any settlement, and the lawyer will get the other ~1/3. Class action is not the way to go, imho.

 

[Dondan]

only the lawyers make out

 

[jonkMACHE]

This thread is brimming with passion, sarcasm and divergent opinions. As a former attorney for a competing car company (and current MMe owner), I’m not disappointed to see the law suit for the following reasons:
1. Ford KNOWS and has admitted it used an insufficiently robust part and that it’s foreseeable that this part’s failure will cause the car to strand families driving the MMe.
2. This defective part continues to strand owners (another post on this forum last night about a family that got stuck…).
3. Ford should replace the part it knows to be insufficiently robust, the sooner the better. (My personal view of doing the “right thing.”) Owners who aren’t worried can choose to not get the replacement (Or take their time), and owners who want the robust part can choose to get it immediately.
4. Companies are motivated by reputational and financial risk. Said another way, they will take greater action and do so with speed when confronted with financial/reputational risk. I believe this lawsuit will create a greater urgency for Ford to do (my view of) the right thing.

I don’t like plaintiff’s attorneys - they’re literally my nemesis. But in this instance (as an owner) I’m glad they took action. Again, I don’t want/expect anything monetary, but I like the additional pressure/publicity to do the “right thing.”

I'm not sure what makes you think Ford isn't going to replace this part with or without a lawsuit?

A lot of people don't understand engineering. You can't just go down to the local Walmart, and pick up a few hundred of the "more robust HVB contactor" part and have them immediately ready for install. These are cutting edge parts that need to be custom designed. Then you need to find a way to fabricate 100,000+ of them a month without compromising quality control. That is extremely difficult to do regardless of how much money you have at your disposal. So naturally, Ford has a limited amount of these contactor boxes, and has to prioritize who gets them - makes sense that the people who get the warning get their box first. I'm sure we will all get it at some point.

And even though nearly all MMEs are affected, the reality is that roughly 1% of owners drive it in a manner that will cause this.

Lawsuits encourage both sides to operate in bad faith - in my experience that almost never gets anything done quicker - it usually has the opposite effect. By the time this lawsuit makes it out of appeals court, we will have the 2025 MachE GT with 15 seconds of full power.

 

[JSW]

I'm not sure what makes you think Ford isn't going to replace this part with or without a lawsuit?

A lot of people don't understand engineering. You can't just go down to the local Walmart, and pick up a few hundred of the "more robust HVB contactor" part and have them immediately ready for install. These are cutting edge parts that need to be custom designed. Then you need to find a way to fabricate 100,000+ of them a month without compromising quality control. That is extremely difficult to do regardless of how much money you have at your disposal. So naturally, Ford has a limited amount of these contactor boxes, and has to prioritize who gets them - makes sense that the people who get the warning get their box first. I'm sure we will all get it at some point.

And even though nearly all MMEs are affected, the reality is that roughly 1% of owners drive it in a manner that will cause this.

Lawsuits encourage both sides to operate in bad faith - in my experience that almost never gets anything done quicker - it usually has the opposite effect. By the time this lawsuit makes it out of appeals court, we will have the 2025 MachE GT with 15 seconds of full power.

I disagree, and note: (1) Folks on this site, with the failure, have represented there were zero wide-open-throttles and only a few DC charges - and I believe them; (2) you’re confusing doing the right thing with doing the easiest thing - the properly robust part exists today and Ford COULD prioritize this, produce 100,000 units of the proper part within weeks, and make the replacement available upon request.

Of course, this is EXACTLY what Ford did with regard to MMe’s in production - they abruptly and timely obtained the properly robust parts and changed the defective part out (No absurd trip to Walmart was necessary).

I believe/hope the lawsuit with force Ford to do the same with regard to existing MMe’s as well.

 

[jonkMACHE]

Point #1 I really can't argue because it's hearsay, but I'll give you that.

Point #2 I believe you are wrong on. Parts that can handle 400+V with 30+A of current require industrial-class materials that are not readily available in standard retail supply chains. See below:

https://www.platt.com/search.aspx?q=3PH+480V+CONTACTOR

Ordering 50 of these will have a 4-5 week lead time, much less a few 100,000. And I'm sure you noticed they're not cheap - $100 a pop for something as simple as a contactor. Building a junction box is probably costing Ford around $1000 (the engineering review and labor assembling this isn't cheap either), and as a lawyer I'm sure you know money is always involved in these conversations.

I'm just saying I don't expect this to get fixed in a month.

 

[RMoore]

I agree that this won’t get resolved on a wide scale anytime soon for many reasons mentioned in prior posts. But I have a question for the lawyers here. Let’s say you decide to replace the HVBJB on your own dime now. Given what has been publicly disclosed by Ford as well as the finding that HVBJBs have failed even with the software patch, would you have a strong case if you sued Ford for the cost of that replacement in small claims court? I have no idea if that’s even doable, but if it is I’m curious as to whether you would prevail. Would Ford send an attorney there to defend the case? Would it be worth it for them given what it would cost or would they do it to avoid precedent?

 

[Zer0t]

If I could get a dealer to replace this for a couple grand I would just for peace of mind.

 

[louibluey]

BENJAMIN KEGELE, THOMAS DOROBIALA, SPENSER HENRY, themselves and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Plaintiffs, FORD MOTOR COMPANY, and Defendants - Terminated

From public record on PACER federal court system, this case was terminated September 13, 2022. Ford made a 25 page Motion to Dismiss on August 29, followed by a Voluntarily Dismissal by Plaintiffs on September 8. It does not look like a settlement, probably just termination (just a guess by a non-litigator) Dismissal is without prejudice, I think means they could refile, unclear if they would, probably not. Instead of the court granting the motion to dismiss, it looks like the Plaintiffs just gave up, again only a guess by a non-litigator.

In the 25 motion to dismiss, generally Ford knocks out the PA plaintiff as having no nexus to California. Then, they go through each element of the complaint one by one, showing missing facts required for each allegation including California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), False Advertising Law (“FAL”), Consumers Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”), and Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (“Song-2 Beverly Act”). "Plaintiffs all fail to plead key facts necessary for their fraud-based claims under 4 the UCL, CLRA, and FAL."

I believe that everything I was reading is public record, however I am not entirely clear that I can just post the pdfs. So here are a few excerpt's from Ford's motion to dismiss which give the general flavor of the document.

"Plaintiffs’ skeletal complaint assumes—but entirely lacks factual allegations to show that because Ford issued a recall to offer a free fix for certain Mustang Mach-E electric-powered vehicles, Ford must have committed fraud and breach of warranty. Such a speculative claim equating every federally supervised vehicle recall with some legal malfeasance is contrary to the point of the federal Motor Vehicle Safety Act and falls far short of what is required to state any viable claim against Ford for fraud or breach of warranty. Plaintiffs rushed to file this boilerplate lawsuit three weeks after Ford issued a recall covering certain 2020 to 2022 Mustang Mach-E vehicles relating to the possibility of battery main contactors overheating. But none of the Plaintiffs allege that they experienced an overheated contactor or any symptom of vehicle overheating. They have not pleaded any facts about their personal experiences with their Mustang Mach-Es, including when and where they purchased or leased their vehicles or whether those vehicles had any performance issues. Plaintiffs also fail to allege any facts that would establish that Ford actually knew of a problem with the Mach-Es before Plaintiffs’ (unidentified) purchase dates, and they fail to identify any allegedly false advertising to support their false advertising claim. Nor do Plaintiffs plead that they ever sought warranty service from Ford, let alone factual allegations showing that Ford failed to honor the vehicles’ Limited Warranty in any way. They merely speculate that “it is not clear that FORD has a true solution to the battery/overheating issue[.]” Compl. ¶ 16. Professing such uncertainty does not suffice to establish the elements of any legal claim. And, although beyond the scope of this motion, it is simply wrong and an impermissible attempt to second-guess the federally regulated recall decision."

"Plaintiffs identify no advertisement or affirmative statement about the Mach-E made by Ford, let alone facts to show any false or misleading statement viewed at or before the time of their purchase or lease. Nor do Plaintiffs plead that they relied on any such representation, as is required under California law. As to purported “omissions,” Plaintiffs have not pleaded any material fact about a supposed defect about their vehicles that Ford actually knew at the time of their individual purchases but failed to disclose. Plaintiffs do not even plead when they purchased their vehicles, much less allege facts to establish that Ford had “knowledge” of some defect in their vehicles before Ford’s original sale of them."

"Plaintiffs’ sole state law warranty claim—for breach of express warranty under the Song-Beverly Act—fails because Plaintiffs have not complied with the Act’s threshold requirements. The Song-Beverly Act requires that buyers “deliver nonconforming goods to the manufacturer’s service and repair facility” (Cal. Civ. Code § 1793.2(c)), and the manufacturer must be given “a reasonable number of attempts” to “service or repair” the product (id. § 1793.2(d)(1)). Plaintiffs do not allege that they brought their Mustang Mach-Es to Ford for service at all, much less that Ford failed to repair the vehicles after a reasonable number of attempts."

"Plaintiffs generically assert that Ford violated the CLRA, UCL, and FAL by “misrepresent[ing] the quality, safety, and reliability” of the Mach-E vehicles (Compl. ¶¶ 50, 56), but they do not identify a single, specific advertisement or affirmative statement about the Mach-E that they allegedly saw before their purchases, much less one on which they specifically relied."

 

[Garbone]

That did not go well. But then again, as a Ford share holder, maybe it did...

 

[ctenidae]

Sounds like they wanted to be in first just in case a smoking gun did appear.

Sponsored