History of the GM pickup truck class action lawsuit
Like Ford and Chrysler, General Motors made pickups with gas tanks inside the cab in the 1960s. Because of safety concerns about putting a gas tank next to passengers, the Big Three automakers all decided to relocate the tank outside the passenger compartment in the early 1970s -- but only GM opted to put the tank outside the frame. The results of that decision have led to a 25-year history of fiery accidents and heavily publicized court action.
1973 -- GM started positioning two 20-gallon tanks outside the frame rail on nearly 10 million full-size pickups and cab-chassis trucks (pickups without beds). The models with this design feature include the 1973-1986 Model C/K series and 1987-1991 R/V series pickup trucks and chassis cabs. It was alleged that when these vehicles were involved in a side-impact crash, the unprotected gas tank was in danger of exploding.
1992 -- The first widely publicized suit over this issue was filed by Thomas and Elaine Moseley of Snellville, GA. Their son, Shannon, died after his 1985 GMC pickup was struck by a drunk driver in 1989. The Moseleys said that their son survived the crash but died from a fire caused by the improperly placed fuel tank. The government began investigating the pickups' safety after petitions by two public interest groups, the Center for Auto Safety and Public Citizen, as well as a controversial "Dateline NBC" program in November 1992 that portrayed the trucks as fire hazards in crashes. (NBC later retracted its story and apologized after GM revealed the network had used toy rocket engines to ignite fuel tank fires in crashes staged for broadcast.)
1993 -- The jury in a state court in Atlanta found GM negligent in February and awarded $105.2 million, most of it as punitive damages, to the parents of Shannon. GM appealed, and ultimately the case was settled in 1998 for an undisclosed amount. GM also settled at least 35 other similar cases before they went to trial. In April 1993, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) called on GM to voluntarily recall the vehicles, but GM refused to comply and instead submitted a 50-page study supporting the safety of its truck.
1994 -- U.S. Secretary of Transportation Federico Pena headed up an investigation into the safety defect and found at least 150 related fire deaths. The investigation also found that GM had known about the defect since the early 1970s and had neither remedied it nor warned the public. In response, GM committed $51 million to safety programs. GM also was hit with class-action suits in a number of states. The lawsuits were consolidated into a multi-district litigation affecting 49 states in Federal District Court in Philadelphia. A separate state class action continued in Texas, where pickup-loving residents owned more than 1 million of the vehicles.
Both class-action suits initially were settled by offering a $1,000 certificate good toward the purchase of a new GM truck or car to current owners of the pickups with sidesaddle tanks. Several state and local objectors along with Public Citizen and the Center for Auto Safety appealed the settlement because the certificate plan benefited only those who could afford to buy a new vehicle and had no value to those who did not.
The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Appellate District of Texas agreed and overturned the Texas class-action settlement with harsh words for both sides. The court said: "This suit was instituted because of the hazard posed by the side-saddle gasoline tank, yet this issue is given scant attention in the settlement agreement."
Lawyers defending the identical settlement for the other 49 states were grilled by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit a few days later. Like the Texas Court, the federal court questioned the fairness of the national class-action settlement and what it did for safety.
1995 -- The Third Circuit reversed the trial court's approval of the nationwide settlement in a scathing and lengthy opinion that rebuked the court, counsel and GM. GM appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, but the Supreme Court refused to hear the case and it went back before the federal trial court.
1996 -- The case was refiled in Louisiana, combining the Texas and the national class action suits. A state court judge in Louisiana approved a new class-action settlement covering all GM truck owners. The case is White et al v. General Motors Corp. et al. The settlement includes the same deal, but adds the stipulation that attorneys for the class-action suit will establish a fund to develop and implement a repair for the GM truck fuel system defect. Certificate Redemption Group (CRG) was asked by the attorneys handling the settlement to implement the sales or transfer of the certificates to create a secondary market. The purpose was to ensure that owners who don't want to buy a new truck would at least get enough cash to fix their old ones and get some benefit from the settlement.
1997 - 2000 -- The Court of Appeals of the Louisiana First Circuit overturns 1996 settlement on a technicality and sends it back to the district court.
1999 -- The NHTSA's Fatality Analysis Reporting System shows that more than 1,600 people have been killed in fiery crashes involving the GM pickups from February 1993 - December 1999.
2001 -- The case continued to languish in the court system with objections to administrative details, but GM signed a final agreement April 12, 2001 and launched the required mailing April 18, 2001 to all 5.8 million eligible class members. Also on April 18, attorneys for the Class launched a separate mailing to the class members that included an offer to buy certificates from consumers who had no use for them. The program is being handled by Certificate Redemption Group (CRG), the market maker brought in by class counsel to increase the settlements value to class members who don't intend to buy a new vehicle.
By Sandy Smith
Content Manager
E-mail: ssmith@verticalnet.com
Subscribe to our free e-mail newsletter.