Mazda Class Action Lawsuit over Water Pump Engine Defect

Sonneveldt et al v. Mazda Motor of America, Inc. et al, 8:19-cv-01298-JLS-KES

The case was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on June 28, 2019.

The second amended complaint alleges that beginning in 2007 and continuing through the 2016 model year, Mazda has incorporated into hundreds of thousands of vehicles an MZI Cyclone engine, which contains a defect in design, manufacturing, materials, or workmanship that causes its internal water pump to suddenly and prematurely fail well before the end of the useful life of the engine, leading to catastrophic engine failure or a costly replacement.

Despite knowing of this defect, Mazda continued selling defective vehicles, failed to disclose the defect to owners and lessees, has not issued a recall, and has not remedied the issue or compensated owners and lessees of the defective vehicles.

2007-2016 Mazda CX-9
2009-2013 Mazda 6

According to publicly available data, the total number of these vehicles sold in the United States is approximately 428,101 vehicles. The number of Class Vehicles is less than that amount, but that amount is not yet publicly available.

According to the class action complaint, beginning in 2007 and continuing through the 2016 model year, Mazda has incorporated into hundreds of thousands of vehicles an MZI Cyclone engine, which contains a defect that causes its internal water pump to fail suddenly and prematurely well before the end of the useful life of the engine, leading to catastrophic engine failure or a costly replacement.

According to the complaint, the alleged defect in the Class Vehicles’ water pumps is that a key component of the mechanical seal, the elastomer bellows, is made of hydrogenated acrylonitrile butadiene rubber, which degrades when exposed to coolant that reaches high temperatures during vehicle operation.

Because the “Cyclone Engine has an internal water pump connected to the crankshaft by the timing chain and positioned directly above the crankshaft[,] … coolant from a failed or failing water pump [leaks] into engine parts, including, inter alia, the timing chain, crankcase and/or oil pan.” (complaint ¶¶ 61, 64.) After leaking into the engine, coolant mixes with the engine oil, which can then spread throughout the entire engine and cause “immediate catastrophic engine failure, without the operator of the vehicle having any prior notice of the problem or of the imminent failure.” (complaint ¶ 64.)

The complaint alleges that despite knowing of this defect with the water pump, Mazda continued selling defective vehicles, failed to disclose the defect to owners and lessees, has not issued a recall, and has not remedied the issue or compensated owners and lessees of the defective vehicles.

For free information on your legal right to seek compensation, fill out the form below or call us at 1-855-678-6881.

According to the complaint, Mazda impliedly warranted that the Class Vehicles were in merchantable condition and fit for the ordinary purpose for which vehicles are used. The Class Vehicles contain an inherent defect with the water pump and present an undisclosed safety risk to drivers and occupants. Thus, Mazda breached the implied warranty of merchantability. And Mazda cannot disclaim its implied warranty as it knowingly sold or leased a defective product.

Mazda provided these vehicles with a 60-month or 60,000-mile warranty against defects in materials or workmanship for the water pump and gaskets.

The complaint also alleges the vast majority of water pump failures in the vehicles occurred well before the end of the useful service life of these vehicles or before they reach 120,000 to 150,000 miles, breaching the implied warranty of merchantability. And if Mazda had not concealed the defect from consumers within the express warranty period, the water pump defect would have been repaired without cost to purchasers as promised under the original warranty.

According to the complaint, Mazda has failed to fix the alleged defect or issue a water pump recall and continues to uniformly breach the warranty.

A second amended complaint was filed on January 26, 2021. Mazda filed an answer to the second amended complaint on August 27, 2021.

On March 12, 2022, plaintiffs moved for class certification, which was granted in part on October 21, 2022, on behalf of residents of these states that purchased or leased the Class Vehicles: California, Michigan, Texas, Virginia, Ohio, Missouri, and Massachusetts.

On November 21, 2022, the Court approved sending of a notice of the Court’s class certification order to class members residing in those states. You should be receiving this Notice shortly.

On January 25, 2023, the court issued an amended order and ruled this lawsuit was not to proceed as a class action on behalf of the following Classes:

1. The Song-Beverly Class: All persons who purchased a new Class Vehicle from an authorized Mazda dealership in the State of California for personal, family, or household purposes, for claims under the Song-Beverly Warranty Act.

2. The Texas Class: All persons who purchased a Class Vehicle from an authorized Mazda dealership in the State of Texas.

Based on this Order, residents of Texas are no longer represented in the class action lawsuit and can pursue individual claims, and individuals in California can pursue individual lemon law claims. However, you may still need to opt out of this class action lawsuit to pursue other claims under California law.

The parties have briefed a motion for summary judgment, which was submitted on January 6, 2023, and is awaiting a ruling. In addition, the court continued the Final Pre-Trial Conference to May 26, 2023 and all other pre-trial dates by 60 days. No trial date has been set, but a trial will likely betake place sometime in March or April 2023 later this year.

Notice of this class action lawsuit should be mailed out to you in March or April 2023. If you desire to opt out of this action, your time to do so will be coming up shortly as described in the notice you will soon be receiving, but you will only have a limited time (approximately 45 days from the date notice is mailed) to decide whether to opt out of the class action lawsuit and proceed with your own individual lawsuit.

Not at this time.

At this point, the case has not been settled. If you want to bring your own lemon law claim, you can do so now or opt out when you receive notice, which likely will be sometime in March or April 2023. Or the class will be defined as those people who have not sued or settled their claims, and you will be automatically opted out of the settlement.

As a settlement or other favorable outcome has not been reached, there is nothing you need to do at this time. However, if you would like to discuss your options with a lemon law attorney, fill out the form below or call us at 1-855-678-6881.

It depends on how the class action settlement is structured, but in general, if you do not opt out of the settlement, you will be bound by its terms. You will receive any benefits offered in the settlement automatically or by submitting a claim form.

However, you may not bring any individual claim for damages caused by the denial of a warranty claim, except possibly for personal injury claims.

For many people, a class action provides them significant benefits without spending any money or doing much other than completing a claim form.

If the Court approves a class action settlement, you will get the relief described in the class notice. However, other people may decide that the relief offered as part of the class action settlement is inadequate, that they do not want to wait to get relief, or that they think they will get more if they do not participate in the class action settlement.

This depends on a variety of factors, such as how old your car is, whether you can document the defect that occurred in your car, whether you have taken it in for repairs on more than one occasion, do you still own the car, is it still under warranty and where do you live.

Depending on the answers to those questions, while there is no guarantee you will receive any recovery if you opt out, you may have the opportunity to receive significant relief, including a vehicle repurchase and penalties.

The Song-Beverly Warranty Act, California Civil Code §1793.2(d)(1), is a California state law that requires manufacturers to repair defects after a reasonable number of repair attempts. What is “reasonable” is not part of hard and fast rules – safety defects should be fixed immediately, for example.

The defects must be important and must “substantially impair the vehicle’s use, value, or safety.” Civil Code §1793.22(e)(2). Under Civil Code §1793.2(d)(1), manufacturers must promptly offer repurchase or replacement of the vehicle they cannot fix in a reasonable time frame.

In addition, Civil Code §1794(c) and §1793.2(d) provide that customers may receive a civil penalty up to two times the actual damages if manufacturers acted “willfully” (meaning knowingly but not necessarily with wrongful or malicious intent) in ignoring or failing its obligation under the Song-Beverly Act.

Finally, under Civil Code §1794(d), manufacturers must pay the plaintiff’s attorney’s fees and costs as part of the settlement, as the Song-Beverly Act is a pro-consumer fee-shifting statute.

Current or former owners should be aware that the California lemon law and other state and federal laws may force Mazda to either “buy the vehicle back” or provide other important compensation if they wrongfully denied warranty coverage.

For free information on your legal right to seek compensation, fill out the form below or call us at 1-855-678-6881.

Under California’s lemon law, qualifying lemons must be bought back, and that can mean a large cash refund and payoff of your loan or lease. The refund could be as much as everything you paid for the vehicle and everything you owe: monthly payments, down payments, tax, finance charges, license, registration, etc.

Depending on the circumstances, you could even qualify for 2x your money back. What Mazda would have to buy it for has nothing to do with how much the vehicle is currently worth. There is a formula in the law that starts with you getting all your money back and then taking certain deductions and exclusions away from your payment.

Those refunds and exclusions are difficult to understand and can be fought against by knowledgeable lemon law attorneys. Don’t settle for small dollar payments or more possible fixes without speaking to a qualified consumer attorney who has your individual best interest in mind.