Sunroof Class Action Against Hyundai Dismissed
February 5, 2013

by Penny Stacey, pstacey@glass.com

A class-action complaint filed against Hyundai alleging that the company knowingly put consumers at risk by selling Veloster models with faulty sunroofs has been dismissed without prejudice—less than a month after it was originally filed. The complaint was filed by plaintiffs Linda Palacios, Sonia Palacios and Fernando Palacios and alleged that "Hyundai has actively concealed the exploding sunroof defect from consumers."

The stipulation for dismissal was filed on January 25—exactly 10 days after the case was filed on January 15—and notes that the parties “hereby give notice that they voluntarily dismiss their claims in this action without prejudice.”

“This dismissal disposes of all claims and all parties in this action,” write the plaintiffs.

When a case is dismissed without prejudice, it means that “the plaintiff is allowed to bring a new suit on the same claim within the period of limitation it is dismissal without prejudice,” according to information from uslegal.com. Generally, when a case is dismissed without prejudice so quickly after being filed, it has been settled, but glassBYTEs.com has not been able to confirm that a settlement was reached in this case.

The plaintiffs, who reside in McAllen, Texas, had alleged that Linda Palacios’ sunroof shattered around December 4, 2012, while the vehicle was parked, sending shattering glass all over and damaging the vehicle’s seats.

"The force of the explosion was so great that it bent the metal frame surrounding the sunroof assembly," counsel alleged in the complaint. "By fortunate chance, Mrs. Palacios was not in the car when the sunroof exploded."

Plaintiffs further contended that upon taking the vehicle to a Hyundai dealer for repair they were told that there wasn't a known issue with the Veloster sunroofs and the "repair may not be covered under warranty." The Palacios also alleged that the "dealership offered to replace the sunroof but only with an identical part, presumably containing the identical dangerous defect."

At press time, counsel for the Palacios had not yet responded to requests for comment on the details of the dismissal.

This story is an original story by AGRR™ magazine/glassBYTEs.com™. Subscribe to AGRR™ Magazine.
Subscribe to receive the free e-newsletter.