The complaint for this class action alleges that the headlights for 2010-2015 Cadillac SRX vehicles are defective, so that they may dim and/or fail in a short time, with normal use.
The Nationwide Class for this action includes all individuals in the US who bought or leased any 2010-2015 Cadillac SRX vehicle. The Florida Subclass includes all individuals in the US who bought or leased any 2010-2015 Cadillac SRX vehicle in the state of Florida.
The complaint claims that the seals in the cars’ headlights wear out or deteriorate, allowing moisture to condense and accumulate, and that the vents are also defective in not allowing a proper flow and exchange of air. According to the complaint, the accumulating condensation can corrode lamp components and cause the headlights to malfunction or the bulbs to dim or fail, within as little as three months after the car is purchased.
As far back as 2012, the New York Times published an article on a National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) investigation into complaints about low-beam headlight failures in Saturn Outlooks and GMC Acadias. The article claimed that the problem only affected vehicles with halogen headlights and reported that “the problem … may also exist in about 93,000 more vehicles, including models from 2010 as well as the 2008-2010 Cadillac CTS and 2010 Cadillac SRX.”
The complaint claims that drivers have complained to the NHTSA and to online forums about the problems with the headlights, which are a safety hazard. As the damage progresses, the headlights can produce dim light or no light at all, which can produce low visibility and lead to accidents.
The complaint quotes CarProblemZoo.com as posting about the dim headlights and claiming that they have resulted in “repeated stops by police to warn of low visibility with the affected headlights.” A number of other online discussions of the problem are reproduced in the comlaint.
A GM Customer Satisfaction Program and several technical bulletins have been ineffective, the complaint says, in resolving the defect or even notifying all customers of the problem. It claims that GM “repairs” the defective headlights by simply replacing them with the same kind of defective items, and that GM has refused to extend the warranty or issue a recall, so that owners must pay for the “repairs” out of their own pockets.
According to the complaint, GM knew or should have known about the defect and the safety risks it posed and that it concealed this knowledge when the cars were sold or repaired. The complaint thus alleges that GM has violated Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act as well as federal laws on express and implied warranties.