MIAMI – Ford Motor Company will face some claims by drivers alleging the 2016 Shelby Mustang GT350 is not safe for racetrack.
In a July 12 ruling, Judge Federico A. Moreno of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida rejected the majority of Ford's requests to dismiss claims made in the lawsuit. Twenty-two owners from 11 states filed the suit last year.
The car owners claim the 2016 Shelby Mustang GT350 does not perform as expected on tracks. The track enthusiasts say their vehicles suffer from manufacturing and design defects that make them unsuitable and unsafe for track driving. The owners allege the powertrain system overheats without any warning and causes the car to enter "limp mode." This can cause the driver to lose control, the lawsuit states.
Twenty-two owners from 11 states filed the suit last year.
Although Ford agreed to some repairs, the plaintiffs claim the company required them to install aftermarket transmission and differential coolers might void the warranties in their state. As expressed in the court’s opinion, “Aftermarket parts or components, sometimes installed by Ford Motor Company or an authorized Ford dealership, may not be covered by the new vehicle limited warranty.”
Moreno ruled on each state warranty separately.
Plaintiffs from Florida alleged breach of express warranty under Florida law. Ford claimed the plaintiffs failed to give adequate notice as required by Florida law.
Moreno disagreed.
"At this stage, Ford's motion is denied, but the determination of whether or not a seller of goods has received adequate notice of an alleged defect is a highly individualized inquiry that may impact class certification,” Moreno wrote in the ruling.
Ford argued that the court must dismiss some claims due to state law or where the driver bought the car. For example, some plaintiffs could not recover damages based on a breach of warranty, because they purchased their vehicle from an authorized Ford dealership, not from Ford directly.
Moreno denied Ford's request to dismiss unjust enrichment claims.
“Because unjust enrichment is available only when there is no adequate remedy at law, and the court has declined to dismiss the express warranty claims at the motion to dismiss stage, the court will determine at a later time whether plaintiffs' remedy at law is adequate," Moreno wrote. "Accordingly, because the issue of whether the express warranty applies in this case is still in dispute, Ford's motion is denied as to the unjust enrichment claims.”
Ford must answer the claims by Aug. 10.