A judge in Tennessee has upheld a $30.8 million verdict issued by a jury against Navistar over the sale of 243 trucks which violated the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act.
Earlier this year, a jury heard the case brought against Navistar by Milan Supply Chain Solutions. Between 2011 and 2012, Milan had bought 243 trucks from Navistar equipped with Maxxforce 13L engines. But as the Maxxforce was Navistar’s first attempt at designing their own heavy-duty emissions system, the engine had some serious flaws.
While it is normal for some flaws to be found and fixed later, Milan’s lawsuit claimed that Navistar knew of multiple serious flaws in the engines before they even went on sale. When companies don’t disclose those flaws, they can run afoul of consumer protection laws.
During the jury trial, former Navistar executives testified that though the company should have done extensive testing on their engines, because they knew the engines might not pass muster, they “did not test s—.” Additionally, internal emails from the company showed that executives were repeatedly told that “we have no field testing.”
The jury ruled in favor of Milan, awarding them $10,800,000 in actual damages and $20,000,000 in punitive damages.
Navistar strongly objected to the verdict, saying that similar cases had been brought against them in the past which ruled in their favor. One Navistar executive described keeping defects hidden from customers as “normal business practice.”
“We’re disappointed in the jury’s verdict and we will be filing an appeal,” a Navistar spokesperson said to Fleetowner at the time. “We have successfully defended similar claims regarding our MaxxForce 13 engines in several other jurisdictions, including dismissal of claims of fraud in courts in Texas, Wisconsin, Michigan, Indiana, Alabama, and Illinois.”
But the appeal has actually made things worse for Navistar. Not only has the judge upheld the verdict of the jury, but in doing so also ruled that Navistar will be responsible for paying over $1.3 million in attorney’s fees.
Source: fleetowner, truckersreport
“The stuff I make is broked, and I don’t have to tell the people I sell it to it’s broked!”
Umm, how’s that old saying go again? ‘Pig in a poke’?
So, yeah right, Navistar. Y got caught being crooked, now it’s time to pay up.
Navistar must have lousy lawyers.All you have to do is search the internet for “diesel engine law suits” to discover all diesel engine manufacturers are facing litigation,as well.That includes four wheeler diesel engines for pick up trucks and what not.Diesel engine emissions control has been a farce right from the get go.The legislated guidelines seem impossible to achieve.
you should do research on these junk engines. they drove a lot people out of business.
look at some of the transmissions on the diesel pickups starting with
a “D” and you will know…I was a vehicle tester and ran the dickens out of four of the upcoming ones..easily broke them all without trying…
yet the engineeers know they have flaws and continuously market them
with the same flaws…So whats new??
Navistar LITERALLY just said, “Yea we like to you guys regularly. It’s a common business practice to sell you expensive garbage.”
I bet this won’t stop people from continuing to buy there trucks, …and school buses.
*lie
Those worse hit are the ones that installed expensive equipment on these massive POS-mobiles
The real problem here is the EPA, they should be the ones being sued.
They rush all these unrealistic goals……kinda tells you something when EVERY engine is having issues.
Yes many companies probably cheat in regards to diesel emission measurements, But to cheat on engine design and to sell that design to a paying customer is paramount to fraud. A jury heard the details and issued a verdict, so now they should get off their fat wallets and pay restitution as ordered by the courts. No mercy for cheats and thieves.
The award and it’s upholding allow the logical conclusion that the purchaser specifically inquired or specifically was told as part of it’s agreement to purchase the trucks they could expect a certain level of reliability the trucks did not meet nor as the evidence showed, could Navstar have truthfully stated any level of reliability in the first place as they had no test data to reference when making such statements in their sales pitch. The mass production of junk and marketing it as tested and reliable when it’s neither should be a clear signal to other companies lying in their sales pitch when the product inevitably fails, they will too.