<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd">
<channel>
<title>Autoblog</title>
<link>http://www.autoblog.com</link>
<description>Autoblog</description>

<language>en-us</language>
<copyright>Copyright 2009 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only.</copyright>
<generator>Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/</generator><item><title><![CDATA[Class action suit filed against Toyota over sudden acceleration claims]]></title><link>http://www.autoblog.com/2009/11/09/class-action-suit-filed-against-toyota-over-sudden-acceleration/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.autoblog.com/2009/11/09/class-action-suit-filed-against-toyota-over-sudden-acceleration/</guid><comments>http://www.autoblog.com/2009/11/09/class-action-suit-filed-against-toyota-over-sudden-acceleration/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[<p>Filed under: <a href="http://www.autoblog.com/category/government-legal/" rel="tag">Government/Legal</a>, <a href="http://www.autoblog.com/category/safety/" rel="tag">Safety</a>, <a href="http://www.autoblog.com/category/lexus/" rel="tag">Lexus</a>, <a href="http://www.autoblog.com/category/toyota/" rel="tag">Toyota</a></p><img hspace="4" vspace="4" border="1" alt="" src="http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2009/08/prius2010_rev008-620op.jpg" /><br />
<br />
Following <a href="http://www.autoblog.com/2009/11/06/report-toyota-execs-deny-cover-up-after-feds-rebuke-automaker-o/">a statement from the DOT and NHTSA</a> asserting that the unintended acceleration issue potentially involving <a href="http://www.autoblog.com/2009/09/29/toyota-recalling-3-8m-vehicles-over-floormats-its-largest-ever/">millions of Toyota vehicles</a> is "not closed," McCuneWright, LLP, a law firm in Southern California, has filed a national class action lawsuit on behalf of all Toyota and Lexus owners that claim to have experienced this phenomenon. Representing the class will be Los Angeles County residents Seong Bae Choi (owner of a 2004 Camry) and Chris Chan Park (owner of a 2008 FJ Cruiser).<br />
<br />
According to the suit, Toyota has known about reports of unintended acceleration for years and has received over 2,000 such complaints. Citing statistics from Safety Research &amp; Strategies, Inc., the lawsuit alleges that there have been 16 fatalities and 243 injuries from Toyota and Lexus crashes attributed to runaway vehicles. Toyota attributes these accidents to improperly installed or incorrect floormats that prevent the accelerator pedal from returning to its idle position.<br />
<br />
Wright, though, said in a statement, "[N]either driver error nor floormats can explain away many other frightening instances of runaway Toyotas. Until the company acknowledges the real problem and fixes it, we worry that other preventable injuries and deaths will occur." Hit the jump for the official press release from McCuneWright.<br />
<br />
[Source: McCuneWright, LLP]<p><a href="http://www.autoblog.com/2009/11/09/class-action-suit-filed-against-toyota-over-sudden-acceleration/" rel="bookmark">Continue reading <em>Class action suit filed against Toyota over sudden acceleration claims</em></a></p><p style="padding:5px;background:#ddd;border:1px solid #ccc;clear:both;"><a href="http://www.autoblog.com/2009/11/09/class-action-suit-filed-against-toyota-over-sudden-acceleration/">Class action suit filed against Toyota over sudden acceleration claims</a> originally appeared on <a href="http://www.autoblog.com">Autoblog</a> on Mon, 09 Nov 2009 08:58:00 EST.  Please see our <a href="http://www.weblogsinc.com/feed-terms/">terms for use of feeds</a>.</p><h6 style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"></h6><a href="http://www.autoblog.com/2009/11/09/class-action-suit-filed-against-toyota-over-sudden-acceleration/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.autoblog.com/forward/19227783/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.autoblog.com/2009/11/09/class-action-suit-filed-against-toyota-over-sudden-acceleration/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a>]]></description><category>chris chan park</category><category>ChrisChanPark</category><category>class action</category><category>class action lawsuit</category><category>class action lawsuits</category><category>class action suit</category><category>ClassAction</category><category>ClassActionLawsuit</category><category>ClassActionLawsuits</category><category>ClassActionSuit</category><category>mccunewright</category><category>seong bae choi</category><category>SeongBaeChoi</category><category>toyota</category><category>toyota class action</category><category>toyota floor mat</category><category>toyota floor mat recall</category><category>toyota floor mats</category><category>toyota floormat</category><category>toyota floormat recall</category><category>toyota floormats</category><category>toyota unintended acceleraton</category><category>ToyotaClassAction</category><category>ToyotaFloorMat</category><category>ToyotaFloormatRecall</category><category>ToyotaFloorMats</category><category>ToyotaUnintendedAcceleraton</category><category>unintended acceleration</category><category>UnintendedAcceleration</category><dc:creator><![CDATA[Jeremy Korzeniewski]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 09 Nov 2009 08:58:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Odo Uh-Oh: Honda extending warranties on 6 million cars]]></title><link>http://www.autoblog.com/2007/02/19/odo-uh-oh-honda-extending-warranties-on-6-million-cars/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.autoblog.com/2007/02/19/odo-uh-oh-honda-extending-warranties-on-6-million-cars/</guid><comments>http://www.autoblog.com/2007/02/19/odo-uh-oh-honda-extending-warranties-on-6-million-cars/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[<p>Filed under: <a href="http://www.autoblog.com/category/government-legal/" rel="tag">Government/Legal</a>, <a href="http://www.autoblog.com/category/honda/" rel="tag">Honda</a></p><a href="http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2007-02-19-odometer-usat_x.htm"><img vspace="4" hspace="4" border="1" align="right" src="http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2007/02/08-08-05_1554.jpg"  alt="" /></a>Honda has decided to settle a class-action lawsuit that alleges its odometers were racking up miles too fast. The automaker says odometers on some 6 million Hondas affected by the suit were accurate to within 3.75% on the high side. The NHTSA doesn't regulate odometer accuracy, and the only industry standard is a voluntary one set by the Society of Automotive Engineers that says odos should be within +/-4%. While the car's affected by the suit fall within that range, Honda recognized that its customers expected their odometers "would be based on zero," and they weren't. <br /><br />The settlement will lengthen the warranty mileage of affected vehicles by 5% and Honda will pay lease-mileage penalties incurred by owners, which is expected to cost the automaker around $6 million. If you own a 2002 to 2006 Honda or Acura bought between April 12, 2002 and November 7, 2006, then you're eligible for the benefits of the settlement. <br /><br />The lawsuit also prompted lawyers to test the odometer accuracy of other vehicles. It was found that on average domestic vehicles were nearly perfect in their odo accuracy, while Toyotas actually racked up fewer miles on the clock than they did in reality. Nissans, however, didn't fare as well, and a new class-action suit has been filed on behalf of Altima owners who say their odometers are counting the miles 2.5% to 3% faster than they should.<br /><br />[Source: USA Today]<br /><br />Thanks for the tip, John!<p style="padding:5px;background:#ddd;border:1px solid #ccc;clear:both;"><a href="http://www.autoblog.com/2007/02/19/odo-uh-oh-honda-extending-warranties-on-6-million-cars/">Odo Uh-Oh: Honda extending warranties on 6 million cars</a> originally appeared on <a href="http://www.autoblog.com">Autoblog</a> on Mon, 19 Feb 2007 12:25:00 EST.  Please see our <a href="http://www.weblogsinc.com/feed-terms/">terms for use of feeds</a>.</p><h6 style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"></h6><a href=http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2007-02-19-odometer-usat_x.htm>Read</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.autoblog.com/2007/02/19/odo-uh-oh-honda-extending-warranties-on-6-million-cars/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.autoblog.com/forward/800562/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.autoblog.com/2007/02/19/odo-uh-oh-honda-extending-warranties-on-6-million-cars/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a>]]></description><category>class action</category><category>class-action</category><category>ClassAction</category><category>lawsuit</category><category>lease</category><category>mileage</category><category>miles</category><category>odo</category><category>odometer</category><category>settlement</category><category>sue</category><category>sued</category><category>warranty</category><dc:creator><![CDATA[John Neff]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 19 Feb 2007 12:25:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Loud Land Rovers land company in class-action lawsuit]]></title><link>http://www.autoblog.com/2007/01/18/loud-land-rovers-land-company-in-class-action-lawsuit/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.autoblog.com/2007/01/18/loud-land-rovers-land-company-in-class-action-lawsuit/</guid><comments>http://www.autoblog.com/2007/01/18/loud-land-rovers-land-company-in-class-action-lawsuit/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[<p>Filed under: <a href="http://www.autoblog.com/category/suvs/" rel="tag">SUV</a>, <a href="http://www.autoblog.com/category/government-legal/" rel="tag">Government/Legal</a>, <a href="http://www.autoblog.com/category/recalls-tsbs/" rel="tag">Recalls</a>, <a href="http://www.autoblog.com/category/land-rover/" rel="tag">Land Rover</a></p><a href="http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=7on_your_side&amp;id=4938111"><img vspace="4" hspace="4" border="1" src="http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2007/01/lr3_testing_27.jpg"  alt="" /></a><br /><br />What's with all these class-action lawsuits lately? Land Rover was just slapped with one thanks to Attorney Mark Anderson in California who filed suit on behalf of all 2004 and 2005 Land Rover LR3 owners in the state. Turns out that the tires on many of these LR3 SUVs are allegedly wearing unevenly, which causes them to make loud noises when the vehicle is moving. The piece we link to from KGO-TV Channel 7 in the Bay Area highlights the trouble of one man, Lew Colon, whose LR3 developed the noise after only 5,000 miles. After some complaining, Colon got Land Rover to give him three new tires, though he had to pay for the fourth. After another 6,000 miles, however, the tires started to wear unevenly again and the noise returned. At 25,000 miles now, Colon's still on that second set.  <br /><br />Land Rover has issues a technical service bulletin about the abnormal wear with instructions for service technicians to use new suspension settings. It would seem that the company at least acknowledges the rapid and uneven tire wear can be traced back to a flaw in the vehicle's suspension design, but so far it has not issued a recall to fix the problem. In the meantime, Colon and the rest of the LR3 owners in California will be filing suit against the automaker to seek a solution. <br /><br />Thanks for the tip, Oliver!<br /><br />[Source: KGO-TV Channel 7]<p style="padding:5px;background:#ddd;border:1px solid #ccc;clear:both;"><a href="http://www.autoblog.com/2007/01/18/loud-land-rovers-land-company-in-class-action-lawsuit/">Loud Land Rovers land company in class-action lawsuit</a> originally appeared on <a href="http://www.autoblog.com">Autoblog</a> on Thu, 18 Jan 2007 17:28:00 EST.  Please see our <a href="http://www.weblogsinc.com/feed-terms/">terms for use of feeds</a>.</p><h6 style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"></h6><a href=http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=7on_your_side&amp;id=4938111>Read</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.autoblog.com/2007/01/18/loud-land-rovers-land-company-in-class-action-lawsuit/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.autoblog.com/forward/737655/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.autoblog.com/2007/01/18/loud-land-rovers-land-company-in-class-action-lawsuit/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a>]]></description><category>california</category><category>class action</category><category>class-action</category><category>ClassAction</category><category>land rover</category><category>LandRover</category><category>lawsuit</category><category>lr3</category><dc:creator><![CDATA[John Neff]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 18 Jan 2007 17:28:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[GM Dexcool lawsuit may soon gain class-action status]]></title><link>http://www.autoblog.com/2006/05/23/gm-dexcool-lawsuit-may-soon-gain-class-action-status/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.autoblog.com/2006/05/23/gm-dexcool-lawsuit-may-soon-gain-class-action-status/</guid><comments>http://www.autoblog.com/2006/05/23/gm-dexcool-lawsuit-may-soon-gain-class-action-status/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[<p>Filed under: <a href="http://www.autoblog.com/category/maintenance/" rel="tag">Maintenance</a>, <a href="http://www.autoblog.com/category/government-legal/" rel="tag">Government/Legal</a>, <a href="http://www.autoblog.com/category/gm/" rel="tag">GM</a></p><p><a href="http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060523/BUSINESS01/605230333/1014"><img width="194" vspace="4" hspace="4" height="244" border="0" align="right" src="http://www.autoblog.com/media/2006/05/dexcool1.jpg" alt="" /></a>The bright orange Dexcool coolant used in many General Motors vehicles over the past decade promised to bring extended&nbsp;maintenance - 5 years or 150,000 miles - to cooling systems, but many owners instead found themselves with vehicles that required system flushes, gasket replacement, and even new radiators and heater cores just outside of the vehicle's warranty period. The blame for the problem depends on who you talk to, and the causes&nbsp;include the "stop-leak" pellets added at the factory, contamination with air from system leaks (Dexcool can quickly degrade when exposed to excess oxygen), and improper service that involved added non-Dexcool coolant or tap water to the cooling system. </p>
<p>Whatever the cause of the problem, several lawsuits have been filed in state and federal court by owners who, in many cases, are justified in their anger over the lack of performance by this coolant. A ruling may soon be forthcoming from a judge in East St. Louis, IL, that would result in a set of consolidated suits gaining class-action status - a move that would open up the lawsuits to involve potentially millions of GM customers. For its part, the automaker says that the recommend service interval in the owner's manual is exactly that - a recommendation, and not a warranty guarantee. </p>
<p>For what it's worth, the Autoblog staff has found that Dexcool works just fine in a cooling system that is free of contaminants and leaks, but indeed the stuff&nbsp;will turn into a gooey mess if mixed with anything but distilled water or if exposed to air. Also, those drivers who do not get their vehicles up to normal operating temperatures every trip may want to consider an accelerated coolant maintenance schedule. </p><p style="padding:5px;background:#ddd;border:1px solid #ccc;clear:both;"><a href="http://www.autoblog.com/2006/05/23/gm-dexcool-lawsuit-may-soon-gain-class-action-status/">GM Dexcool lawsuit may soon gain class-action status</a> originally appeared on <a href="http://www.autoblog.com">Autoblog</a> on Tue, 23 May 2006 11:31:00 EST.  Please see our <a href="http://www.weblogsinc.com/feed-terms/">terms for use of feeds</a>.</p><h6 style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"></h6><a href=http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060523/BUSINESS01/605230333/1014>Read</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.autoblog.com/2006/05/23/gm-dexcool-lawsuit-may-soon-gain-class-action-status/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.autoblog.com/forward/620945/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.autoblog.com/2006/05/23/gm-dexcool-lawsuit-may-soon-gain-class-action-status/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a>]]></description><category>class action</category><category>coolant</category><category>Dexcool</category><category>General Motors</category><category>GM</category><category>lawsuit</category><category>technical service bulletin</category><category>TSB</category><dc:creator><![CDATA[Eric Bryant]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 23 May 2006 11:31:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[GM slapped with gasket class-action lawsuit in Canada, claims could hit $1.2 billion]]></title><link>http://www.autoblog.com/2006/04/26/gm-slapped-with-gasket-class-action-lawsuit-in-canada-claims-co/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.autoblog.com/2006/04/26/gm-slapped-with-gasket-class-action-lawsuit-in-canada-claims-co/</guid><comments>http://www.autoblog.com/2006/04/26/gm-slapped-with-gasket-class-action-lawsuit-in-canada-claims-co/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[<p>Filed under: <a href="http://www.autoblog.com/category/trends/" rel="tag">Trends</a>, <a href="http://www.autoblog.com/category/government-legal/" rel="tag">Government/Legal</a>, <a href="http://www.autoblog.com/category/recalls-tsbs/" rel="tag">Recalls</a></p><p><ahref="http://finance.canada.com/bin/story?StoryId=Cre2EWeabyNvZAw5LC3mTmJi3ndGWmtK&amp;Topic=Canadian_Press&amp;Type=home&amp;Heading=News%20from%20Canadian%20Press"><imghspace="4" src="http://www.autoblog.com/media/2006/04/Canadian-justice-logo.gif" align="right" vspace="4" border="0"alt="" /></a>Earlier this month, Autoblog informed you about General Motors electing to handle a widespread intakemanifold gasket defect on a <ahref="http://www.autoblog.com/2006/04/15/gm-to-handle-intake-manifold-gasket-problem-on-a-case-by-case-ba/">vehicle-by-vehiclebasis</a>. But if Toronto-based law firm Stevensons LLP has any say in the matter, the automaker won't have the optionto be choosy with some 400,000 Canadian vehicles.</p>
<p>The firm announced Tuesday that it is filing a class-action lawsuit against General Motors of Canada Ltd., as wellas parent company General Motors Corp. The suit is predicated on the premature failure of intake manifold gaskets usedin a wide range of the company's vehicles from 1995-2003. Given the 400,000 vehicle estimate by Stevensons and anaverage claim of $3,000 per vehicle, the class-action tab could balloon to $1.2 billion dollars.</p>
<p>A similar lawsuit in the U.S. was granted class-action status in January.</p>
<p>Click on the link to see further details, including a list of affected vehicles.</p>
<p>[Sources: The&nbsp;Canadian Press via Canada.com; Canadianally.com]</p><p style="padding:5px;background:#ddd;border:1px solid #ccc;clear:both;"><a href="http://www.autoblog.com/2006/04/26/gm-slapped-with-gasket-class-action-lawsuit-in-canada-claims-co/">GM slapped with gasket class-action lawsuit in Canada, claims could hit $1.2 billion</a> originally appeared on <a href="http://www.autoblog.com">Autoblog</a> on Wed, 26 Apr 2006 11:31:00 EST.  Please see our <a href="http://www.weblogsinc.com/feed-terms/">terms for use of feeds</a>.</p><h6 style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"></h6><a href=http://finance.canada.com/bin/story?StoryId=Cre2EWeabyNvZAw5LC3mTmJi3ndGWmtK&amp;Topic=Canadian_Press&amp;Type=home&amp;Heading=News%20from%20Canadian%20Press>Read</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.autoblog.com/2006/04/26/gm-slapped-with-gasket-class-action-lawsuit-in-canada-claims-co/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.autoblog.com/forward/611919/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.autoblog.com/2006/04/26/gm-slapped-with-gasket-class-action-lawsuit-in-canada-claims-co/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a>]]></description><category>Alero</category><category>Aztek</category><category>Bonneville</category><category>Buick</category><category>Buick Park Avenue</category><category>Buick Regal</category><category>BuickParkAvenue</category><category>BuickRegal</category><category>Chevrolet</category><category>Chevy</category><category>Class Action</category><category>ClassAction</category><category>gasket</category><category>General motors</category><category>GeneralMotors</category><category>GM</category><category>Grand Prix</category><category>GrandPrix</category><category>intake manifold</category><category>intake manifold gasket</category><category>IntakeManifold</category><category>IntakeManifoldGasket</category><category>Lawsuit</category><category>LeSabre</category><category>Lumina</category><category>Monte Carlo</category><category>MonteCarlo</category><category>Oldsmobile</category><category>Pontiac</category><category>Rendezvous</category><category>Riviera</category><category>Stephenson LLC</category><category>StephensonLlc</category><category>Toronto Law</category><category>TorontoLaw</category><dc:creator><![CDATA[Chris Paukert]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 26 Apr 2006 11:31:00 EST</pubDate></item></channel></rss>