Driver With Shattered Panoramic Sunroof Alleges Mercedes-Benz Misrepresented Vehicle Safety [UPDATE]
Last Updated on November 5, 2021
Pickens v. Daimler AG et al.
Filed: June 14, 2020 ◆§ 1:20-cv-03470
A class action claims the panoramic sunroof found in certain Mercedes-Benz models can spontaneously shatter.
Illinois
Case Updates
November 5, 2021 – Mercedes-Benz Sunroof Class Action Dismissed for Good
The Mercedes-Benz sunroof class action detailed on this page has been dismissed with prejudice by U.S. District Judge Thomas M. Durkin.
In a 15-page memo and order submitted on November 1, 2021, Judge Durkin tossed the case for good on the grounds that the plaintiff had already amended his initial complaint twice and had sufficient opportunity to state and amend his allegations, including any specific promises made in Mercedes’ advertisements or by a salesperson and with regard to the glass in the cars’ sunroofs.
“Indeed, Pickens does not remember at all what Mercedes promised in its advertising beyond a vague assertion of safety and quality,” the judge said. “Beyond advertising and the fact that Mercedes manufactured his car, Pickens does not allege a relationship with Mercedes.”
The judge added that courts in the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, where the case was heard, have recognized that “this kind of relationship between a car manufacturer and a car consumer is insufficient to allege an exception to the privity requirement,” a legal prerequisite for bringing breach of implied warranty claims for economic damages.
Further, as the plaintiff’s fraud-based claims required him to allege Mercedes made a false statement to him or failed to disclose material information, the judge ruled that the man’s other statements regarding safety and quality were similarly “too vague to form the basis of any fraud claim.”
“Claims about ‘quality’ in the context of advertising or salesmanship are generally considered ‘puffery’ that is not actionable…Claims about safety can be actionable as fraud if they are specific,” Judge Durkin said, adding later that the plaintiff also failed to plausibly allege Mercedes knew that the sunroofs in certain vehicles were prone to shatter.
Law360 reports that the plaintiff’s counsel shot back at the judge’s decision to permanently end the case, arguing that Judge Durkin “wanted to end this case at the first court appearance.”
“He stated or hinted that maybe counsel for Mercedes-Benz should file a motion based upon lack of jurisdiction,” the attorneys said. “At another court hearing, he stated that my complaint was copied and pasted.”
Lastly, the judge took the air out of the plaintiff’s claim that he sustained emotional distress from the apparent explosion of his Mercedes sunroof. Judge Durkin stated that the alleged distress was, in fact, “suffered by his sister who was driving the car at the time the glass shattered.”
A proposed class action alleges Mercedes-Benz has fraudulently marketed its vehicles as safe without disclosing that the large panoramic sunroof found in certain models can shatter without warning.
Filed in Illinois against Daimler AG, Mercedes-Benz, sunroof manufacturer Saint-Gobain Sekurit and car dealer Napleton Autowerks of Indiana, the 48-page suit alleges the automaker knowingly and intentionally “omitted, concealed, and inadequately provided” critical safety information that may have impacted drivers’ decisions to buy or lease their vehicles. The plaintiff, the owner of a 2015 Mercedes-Benz ML 350, claims her sunroof shattered spontaneously in March 2020 while she was driving, spraying glass throughout the interior of the vehicle.
According to the case, the shattering of the plaintiff’s sunroof was “the product of a common and known defect” found in certain Mercedes-Benz vehicles. The lawsuit asserts Mercedes-Benz continues to market and sell certain vehicles without warning consumers of “the significant risks of unexpected sunroof explosion.”
Per the lawsuit, many Mercedes-Benz vehicles are sold with large sun or moon roofs, often called panoramic sunroofs. Due to its large size, a panoramic sunroof spans a large portion of a vehicle’s roof and poses unique engineering challenges given it requires “precise strengthening, attachment, and stabilization of the glass,” the suit explains, noting some automakers have been forced to issue recalls centered on their panoramic sunroofs.
The suit claims several Mercedes-Benz models are plagued by panoramic sunroof issues, and drivers have posed a number of complaints to the automaker, reporting their sunroofs have exploded, shattered and/or cracked during the course of normal use. The lawsuit stresses that the shattering of a Mercedes-Benz sunroof often occurs while a car is being driven, posing a substantial safety risk to drivers, passengers and anyone within the vehicle’s vicinity.
As the lawsuit tells it, the plaintiff’s sunroof abruptly exploded amid clear weather conditions and with the sun shining. The temperature at the time was between 35 and 40 degrees, the case says, and the plaintiff had the heat on low inside her vehicle. While driving, the plaintiff “heard a big boom as loud as a gunshot” and, upon seeing no other vehicles in proximity to hers, pulled over to inspect for exterior damage, per the complaint.
After re-entering the car and closing the door, glass rained down on the plaintiff as the sunroof caved in, the complaint says.
Though the automaker has pulled nearly 750,000 cars over sunroof issues, Mercedes-Benz has not recalled its ML 350 for sunroof problems, and has instead offered drivers between $250 and $500 “as a ‘good faith’ gesture” in return for forgoing legal action, the lawsuit claims, noting panoramic sunroof installation or replacement can run upward of $2,000.
Get class action lawsuit news sent to your inbox – sign up for ClassAction.org’s newsletter here.
Before commenting, please review our comment policy.