– Subaru side mirror replacements convinced a vehicle owner to file a class action lawsuit, but Subaru says the case should be dismissed because the plaintiffs have no case.
Texas plaintiff Katelyn Robinson paid $405 to file the class action for more than $5 million because her 2024 Subaru Crosstrek driver’s mirror vibrates.
A dealer supplied a replacement mirror, but the plaintiff complains that the replacement mirror is no better than the original.
The original Subaru lawsuit included only Texas customers, but the class action now includes customers in Alaska, California, Florida, Texas and Utah.
The Subaru mirrors reportedly vibrate in these models:
2024 Subaru Crosstrek
2024 Subaru Ascent
2023–2024 Subaru Solterra
The lawsuit claims the side mirrors are defective due to “defective materials used to construct the mirror housing itself and/or a defect in the structure of the mirror housing.”
Subaru drivers complain that the vibrations cause serious problems because the images in the mirrors appear blurry due to the vibration. And especially if the driver’s side exterior mirror vibrates at night while driving on the highway, this can be annoying.
According to the class action, a technical service bulletin (TSB 12-195-15) issued to dealers in 2015 proves that Subaru long ago knew that the driver’s side mirrors were shaking. But that bulletin did not list the vehicles named in the Subaru mirror replacement lawsuit.
Lawsuit against Subaru side mirrors partially dismissed
Subaru filed a motion to dismiss the class action and Judge Karen M. Williams agreed to dismiss some of the claims, but not all.
Subaru told the judge that the lawsuit does not provide any evidence to support claims of a manufacturing defect covered by the warranty. Instead, Subaru disputes the allegations of “design defects” that are not covered by the warranty.
The automaker also pushed back against claims about Subaru window stickers (Monroney labels) failing to warn customers about the allegedly defective exterior mirrors.
Subaru told the judge that plaintiffs failed to show how the window stickers were in any way false or misleading, or why the labels were even mentioned in the mirror class action.
Subaru called the claims “standard allegations not supported by specific facts” and also told the judge that the plaintiffs want the court to force Subaru to recall the vehicles due to vibrating mirrors. But that’s the job of federal security regulators, not a judge.
Although some claims remain, such as fraud-based claims, the judge has rejected other claims.
An example of a denied claim involves a California plaintiff who complained that Subaru breached its express warranty regarding the side mirror. The class action lawsuit says the plaintiff once submitted his vehicle to a dealer for repairs related to the vibrating mirror, but the mirror continued to vibrate.
The lawsuit claims this shows Subaru breached the plaintiff’s express warranty. But Subaru argued that violating the warranty would require more than one repair attempt. According to Subaru, a single repair visit is not enough because the law says it requires a “reasonable number of attempts,” not just one.
The judge agreed with Subaru.
“As numerous California courts have recognized, the phrase ‘reasonable number of repair attempts’ clearly anticipates ‘more than one opportunity to repair the vehicle to bring it into compliance.’” – Judge Willems
Other denied claims include fraudulent concealment under California and Utah law, and unjust enrichment claims. However, several claims remain, allowing the case to proceed.
CarComplaints.com will update our website with further developments in the Subaru vibrating side mirror lawsuit.
The Subaru driver’s mirror lawsuit was filed by these plaintiffs:
Katelyn Robinson / Texas / 2024 Subaru Crosstrek
Michelle Anders / Alaska / 2024 Subaru Ascent
Michael Brenner / California / 2024 Subaru Solterra
Ricardo Chaidez / Utah / 2024 Subaru Crosstrek
Jessica Taylor / Florida / 2024 Subaru Crosstrek
The Subaru side mirror replacement lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey: Katelyn Robinson, et al., v. Subaru of America, Inc.
The plaintiff is represented by Lemberg Law, LLC.
#Lawsuit #Subaru #side #mirror #replacement #continues