IMS Class Action Suit 2001-2005 owners win

[zee]

Link from another forum.

http://forums.rennlist.com/rennforums/996-forum/745057-ims-class-action-suit-2001-2005-owners-win.html

[mffarrell]

I wonder if this is fact or fiction? I read the settlement proposal, seems like a lot of verbiage is missing.

[Loren]

If it is real it should be a public record.

[mffarrell]

If it is real it should be a public record.

I Googled it, but I didn't find a lawsuit.

[Ahsai]

Looks real to me. Just google "Eisen v. Porsche Cars North America, Inc. Case No. CV11-9405 CAS (FEMx)"

Looks like it's only for owners who had actually paid for an IMS repair but not for people with future potential IMS failure. Also, looks like only cars no older than 10yrs old are covered. I only glanced over it so I could be wrong...

[987_RDC]

So in other words....lawyers win again?

[whall]

Can someone explain how the results of the suit covering MY01 to MY05 996s/986s excludes cars that have been "in service" for ten years. That would seem to eliminate MY01 to MY03.5 cars from consideration.

BTW this is part of the verbiage in the settlement:

"The following Porsche Boxster and 911 vehicles that experienced or will experience IMS related engine damage are included:"

Just wondering.......seeing how I own two (an MY02 and an MY03) Stuttgart grenades.

Bill

Edited March 14, 2013 by whall

[1schoir]

Bill:

They may have used the earlier, more than 10 year old cars, to show that there was a problem with the M96 engine.

Then, the parties came to an agreement (which the judge now has to approve) that if you got 10 years' use out of the car, or 130,000 miles (whichever comes first), then that represented fair value in terms of what you bargained for when you bought the car.

Even though some cars had their IMS bearing self-destruct, they may have agreed that if the IMS bearing lasted 10 years or 130,000 miles and the owner had not had an IMS bearing related repair performed, then that particular bearing could not be considered defective, and that, in effect, it had done its job and that those owners were therefore not entitled to any compensation.

Without seeing the judge's decision and rationale, that's the best I can come up with.

Regards, Maurice.

[judgejon]

Maurice comment sounds right to me. I'm not familiar with this, but from a quick read it appears the 10 year, 130k exclusion was intended. Also, no reimbursements for preventive care expense like the LN replacement. Question could be if you've done the LN work and IMS still blows up would you get reimbursement rights. And if case final in 2003, clearly no reimbursements for 996 owners with cars built 10 years prior to that date, or earlier cars if an earlier cut off date is in the paperwork. Is this really 2013? Is my car already 10 years old? Wow, time flies when you're having fun.

[judgejon]

Just noticed another recent thread re IMS replacement. I'm sure there are many who, like me, had the LNE work done for just the peace of mind of knowing it was done. No reimbursement for us, but I still think it was worth it.

[PeterEarnshaw]

Ok, so if my 1999 C2 IMS shaft broke 4 years ago with 45,000 miles on it, and I had to pay to fix it, and I didn't get 10 years out of the car since it was first licensed at the end of 1999..... shouldn't this be included in the class action.!?! ... especially after Porsche changed the clutch 5 days before the IMS went !!!!!! still pissed about this one.!