1999 Saturn Sl Sl2 Auto Low Miles on 2040-cars

Auto blog

GM isn't liable for punitive damages in ignition switch cases

NEW YORK — A federal appeals court said General Motors is not liable for punitive damages over accidents that occurred after its 2009 bankruptcy and involved vehicles it produced earlier, including vehicles with faulty ignition switches. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan said on Tuesday that the automaker did not agree to contractually assume liability for punitive damages as part of its federally-backed Chapter 11 reorganization. GM filed for bankruptcy in June 2009, and its best assets were transferred to a new Detroit-based company with the same name. The other assets and many liabilities stayed with "Old GM," which is also known as Motors Liquidation Co. Tuesday's 3-0 decision may help GM reduce its ultimate exposure in nationwide litigation over defective ignition switches in several Chevrolet, Pontiac and Saturn models. It is also a defeat for drivers involved in post-bankruptcy accidents, including those who collided with older GM vehicles driven by others, as well as their law firms. The ignition switch defect could cause engine stalls and keep airbags from deploying, and has been linked to 124 deaths. A lawyer for the drivers and their law firms did not immediately respond to requests for comment. GM had no comment. Circuit Judge Dennis Jacobs said GM's agreement to acquire assets "free and clear" of most liabilities excused it from punitive damages claims for Old GM's conduct. He also noted that the judge who oversaw the bankruptcy concluded that the new company could not be liable for claims that the "deeply insolvent" Old GM would never have paid. The decision upheld a May 2018 ruling by U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman in Manhattan, who oversees the ignition switch litigation. Drivers have sought a variety of damages in that litigation, including for declining resale values. GM has recalled more than 2.6 million vehicles since 2014 over ignition switch problems. It has also paid more than $2.6 billion in related penalties and settlements, including $900 million to settle a U.S. Department of Justice criminal case. The case is In re: Motors Liquidation Co, 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 18-1940. Government/Legal Chevrolet Pontiac Saturn Safety gm ignition switch

GM recalling another 2.7 million vehicles in five separate campaigns

The recalls keep rolling in from General Motors, evidently keen to avoid repeating the mistakes of the ignition-switch debacle and clean house. This time they're all coming at once, with five separate recalls announced together covering approximately 2.7 million vehicles.
The largest of the five actions involves over 2.4 million units of the previous-generation Chevrolet Malibu and Malibu Maxx, Pontiac G6 and Saturn Aura in order to fix brake light wiring harness, which have been found to be susceptible to corrosion. The recall is separate from the 56k Aura sedans which GM recently recalled over faulty shift cables, not to mention the previous massive recall of 1.3 million vehicles - some of them the same models - but appears to have resulted from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration investigation that started with the G6 almost a year ago.
The second-largest campaign involves the 2014 Chevy Malibu, specifically those fitted with GM's 2.5-liter engine and stop/start system, approximately 140,000 examples of which has been found to have problematic brakes. The issue does not appear to be connected to the recall of 8k Malibu and Buick LaCrosse sedans (also involving brake woes) which we reported upon last week. Four crashes have been reported in such models, but GM admits it's not yet clear if the problem was a contributing factor in the accidents.

Woman Cleared In Fatal Car Wreck After GM Letter

A Texas judge cleared a woman Monday for a car accident that killed her fiance in 2004, after General Motors acknowledged that her car would have been among millions being recalled for a problem that may have contributed to the death. Candice Anderson was driving a 2004 Saturn Ion when it suddenly veered off a road about 60 miles east of Dallas and slammed into a tree. Anderson, then 21, was severely injured when the car's air bags failed to deploy. Her 25-year-old fiance, Gene Erikson, who was a passenger, was killed. She later pleaded guilty to charges stemming from the wreck. But during a hearing Monday, State District Judge Teresa Drum expunged the conviction from her record, according to officials in the Van Zandt County court andAnderson's attorney, Bob Hilliard. In a letter given to the court ahead of the hearing, an attorney for the automaker confirmed that Anderson's Saturn would have been among 2.6 million GM vehicles recalled in February to address ignition switches that can slip out of the "run" position, causing the engines to stall and disabling power steering, brakes and air bags. Anderson's crash "is one in which the recall condition may have caused or contributed to the frontal air bag non-deployment in the accident," attorney Richard C. Godfrey wrote. Hilliard provided a copy of the letter to The Associated Press, and Godfrey confirmed its contents Monday. Anderson was initially charged with criminally negligent homicide because there was no clear explanation at the time why the wreck occurred, according to court documents from the case. She pleaded guilty to a letter charge in 2006, and was sentenced to five years' probation. She also was ordered to perform 260 hours of community service, pay court costs and cover the costs of Erikson's funeral. "GM knew this defect caused this death, yet instead of telling the truth watched silently as Candice was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter," Hilliard said Monday. "It took 10 years for GM to find its voice." In a separate statement issued by the company, GM said it "cooperated fully by providing technical information that was requested to make a decision in this matter." The carmaker also said the issue in Anderson's case was for local law enforcement and courts to consider. "That's why we took a neutral position on Ms. Anderson's case," the company's statement said. "It was appropriate for the court to determine the legal status of Ms.