Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC, has filed its response to a class action lawsuit alleging that 2020-2022 Defender vehicles contain defective windshields. The vehicle manufacturer argues that the U.S. District Court of New Jersey should dismiss the complaint for a number of reasons, including that the complaint does not actually identify a specific defect.
According to court documents filed at the end of June 2022, plaintiffs allege that Land Rover “knew” that Defenders “contained one or more defects in the way the vehicles are manufactured and/or made that can cause the windshield to crack, chip and/or fracture.” According to the complaint filed by the plaintiffs, Land Rover would have known of the alleged defect through pre-production testing, pre-production design failure mode and analysis data, production design failure mode and analysis data, early consumer complaints and more.
The plaintiffs propose the alleged issue results from the usage of deficient materials in the construction of the windshield or a deficiency in the structure of the vehicle itself. The lawsuit argues that Land Rover will not cover the repair or replacement of those windshields under warranty, and that replaced windshields are also defective.
On Wednesday, October 19, Jaguar filed its response with the court, arguing that all claims should be dismissed.
“First, the complaint does not identify a defect. At most, it identifies symptoms of some unidentified defect; but the alleged windshield cracks are also consistent with a non-defective windshield,” Jaguar argues. “This failure to identify a defect is fatal to all of Plaintiffs’ claims.”
Jaguar says that plaintiffs claim their windshields cracked at which time they “make the unsupported leap that the windshields must not have been strong enough due to ‘deficient materials’ or ‘a deficiency in the structure of the Class Vehicles.’”
In addressing the allegation of statutory fraud, Jaguar says plaintiffs’ claims do not address the “who, what, where and when” of the alleged fraud and should therefore be dismissed per court precedent. Additionally, Jaguar argues that plaintiffs’ claims also lack specificity with respect to the allegation that Land Rover failed to inform customers of the reported issue.
“Plaintiffs do not identify any source of information that should have contained the disclosure they seek,” Jaguar argues.
Continuing its argument, Jaguar says the allegations regarding pre-release testing, data and more are not supported by asserted facts. And the vehicle manufacturer tells the court that the limited warranty does not include damage caused by objects striking the windshield, nor does it cover damage caused by design defects.