Monday, July 27, 2026
Page 3
Federal Judge in Detroit Rules Suit on Behalf of California Consumers May Continue
Ford Motor Company Is Alleged to Have Fraudulently Concealed Defect in Pick-Up Trucks Which Resulted in Excessive Consumption of Oil
By a MetNews Staff Writer
Denial of a summary judgment motion brought by Ford Motor Company means that a nationwide class action—that includes a subclass of California motorists suing, in part, under the state’s consumer-protection statutes—will continue to be waged in the Detroit Courthouse of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan over an alleged defect in pickup trucks that was, it is alleged, fraudulently concealed from the public.
Judge Gershwin A. Drain found there to be ample evidence of violations of California laws.
Richard Carter of San Diego County, who in 2022 purchased a 2019 Ford vehicle, is the representative California plaintiff. The operative pleading alleges that he complained to the dealership about excessive oil consumption; it wasn’t remedied; this is costing him money; and he would either not have purchased the truck, or would not have paid as much for it as he did for it, if the defect had been disclosed.
Like Experiences
The problems that he encountered, he portrays, are typical of those experienced by purchasers of 2018-20 F-150 vehicles equipped with a particular engine.
Ford’s summary judgment motion on Wednesday was granted in part and denied in part. Left intact are Carter’s claims under three California statutes—the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”), Civil Code §1750 et seq.; the Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), Business & Professions Code §17200 et seq.; and the False Advertising Law (“FAL”), Business & Professions Code §17500 et seq.—as well as claims of fraudulent concealment, unjust enrichment, negligent misrepresentation.
Fallen are claims under California’s Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (the “lemon law”) and for breach of express warranty. Dismissal of those claims was not opposed.
Claim Under UCL
Addressing Carter’s action under the UCL—which may be based on conduct that is either unfair, unlawful or fraudulent—Drain said, with respect to unfairness:
“Ford has offered no argumentation as to how Mr. Carter’s claim fails under various tests available under this prong. And in any event, the Court finds that there is sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find that Ford’s conduct was immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous or substantially injurious to consumers.”
He also said that “Ford has not shown that it is entitled to summary judgment on any of Mr. Carter’s California statutory claims,” and accordingly, “they may serve as valid predicates for his UCL claim under the ‘unlawful’ prong.”
With respect to fraud—alleged not only in the claim under the UCL, but also those pursuant to the CLRA and the FAL—Drain wrote that under the evidence, “construed in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs, a reasonable jury could find that Ford knew about the oil consumption defect prior to any of the Named Plaintiffs purchasing or leasing their vehicles.”
Fraudulent Concealment
Turning to Carter’s claim of fraudulent concealment, judge declared:
“Here, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs, a reasonable jury could find that Ford had exclusive knowledge of the oil consumption defect before Plaintiff Carter purchased the Class Vehicle. Nothing in the record suggests that Ford disclosed the defect to consumers. Moreover, a reasonable jury could find that the defect, which potentially diminished vehicle longevity and implicated vehicle safety, was a material fact Ford was duty-bound to disclose to consumers, and that Ford failed to adequately address the problem prior to Plaintiff Carter’s purchase of the Class Vehicle.
“Ford argues that, under California law, ‘proving materiality and a duty to disclose requires evidence showing the alleged defect either presents an ‘unreasonable safety hazard’ or is so significant it negates a product’s ‘central functionality’ by rendering it ‘incapable of use by any consumer.’ ”…However, the cases cited by Ford do not establish such a requirement. Moreover, this Court is bound by its prior interpretations of California law, which do not require a plaintiff to make such a showing in order to prevail on a fraudulent concealment claim.”
The case is Lyman v. Ford Motor Co., 21-10024.
Copyright 2026, Metropolitan News Company