A class action lawsuit alleging that 2020-2022 Defender vehicles from Jaguar Land Rover North America contain defective windshields continues to make its way through New Jersey District Court. Following the filing of an amended complaint, and Jaguar’s response to that amended complaint, the Court may soon weigh in on the defendant’s motion to dismiss.
Court documents filed by plaintiffs at the end of June 2022 allege that Land Rover “knew” 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, 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 amended complaint includes a number of additional plaintiffs, with six persons named as opposing the two defendants from the original complaint. The additional plaintiffs also claim that Land Rover failed to disclose potential windshield defects in the purchased vehicle. They say they were told by Land Rover that the warranty would not cover windshield repairs or replacements, with one plaintiff saying he had to drive with a cracked windshield for three months.
Jaguar responded to the amended complaint approximately one month later, at the end of December 2022, with that response including a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. Among other arguments, Jaguar contends the complaint should be dismissed as the limited warranty doesn’t cover damage caused by outside forces and the plaintiffs do not plead a breach of the express warranty. Nor does the limited warranty cover design defects, Jaguar says.
At the beginning of February 2023, the attorney for the defendant asked the Court for additional time with respect to the filing of responses to the motion to dismiss. The Court is asked to extend the timeline for plaintiffs’ response to the motion to dismiss to February 14. The defendant would then have until March 10 to reply.
The motion was filed on February 3 and has not yet received the judge’s signature.