Costa v. FCA US LLC f/k/a Chrysler Group LLC
United States District Court, District of Massachusetts
Case No. 1:20-cv-11810-ADB
On October 19, 2023, the Court modified the class definition to include only:
All persons in Massachusetts who currently own or lease any of the Class Vehicles, manufactured by FCA or any of its subsidiaries or affiliates, that is equipped with an AHR system.
- 2012-2018 Dodge Journey
- 2012 Jeep Liberty
- 2012-2017 Jeep Patriot or Compass
- 2012 Dodge Caliber
- 2012-2018 Dodge Caravan
- 2012-2018 Town & Country
- 2012-2018 Grand Voyager
- 2012-2018 Dodge Durango
- 2012-2018 Jeep Grand Cherokee
- 2012-2014 Sebring/Avenger
- 2012-2014 Chrysler 200
Background of the Litigation
Plaintiffs, Maria Costa and Mario Soares, have filed a Class Action lawsuit against FCA US LLC, alleging that the company violated Massachusetts law by selling and leasing vehicles equipped with defective Automatic Head Restraint (“AHR”) systems. An AHR system is a headrest that is designed to move forward or “deploy” in the event of a rear end collision. The plaintiff alleges that the AHR systems in Class Vehicles are defective because they sometimes deploy when vehicles are not involved in a collision. The plaintiff asserts that such events pose a safety hazard to the public. FCA US denies that the Class Vehicles are defective and denies that AHR deployments pose a safety hazard.
The Court certified plaintiffs’ claim against the Defendant alleging a violation of the Massachusetts unfair and/or deceptive trade practice, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A. Chapter 93A. The claims certified by the Court do not include any claims for personal injuries that may have occurred as a result of a defective AHR system.
The case proceeded to trial on behalf of this revised class on October 30, 2023. On November 14, 2023, the jury returned a verdict in FCA’s favor. Specifically, the jury found that:
- Plaintiff and the class failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that FCA engaged in deceptive acts or practices in violation of Mass. Gen. Laws Chapter 93A;
- Plaintiff and the class proved by a preponderance of the evidence that FCA engaged in unfair acts or practices in violation of Mass. Gen. Laws Chapter 93A, that the headrests in each of the
Class Vehicles were defective and that FCA’s act or practice would cause substantial injury to the public or to consumers in general; and,
- Plaintiff and the class failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that FCA’s unfair acts or practices harmed the Class.