View Single Post
Old 07-21-2013, 05:39 PM   #18
thom4782
Registered User
 
thom4782's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Foster City CA
Posts: 1,099
Fatmike - you're absolutely right. I should have been more clear in the 10 year point.

As a practical matter, the proposed settlement excludes all 2001 and 2002 Boxter owners, who HAVE NOT ALREADY experienced an IMS failure, from receiving compensation for future IMS related damage. That's over 90% of all 2001 and 2002 owners. Some deal, huh?

2003 owners are on the non-compensation bubble. And the clock continues to tick for 2004 and 2005 owners. The only clear winners, if one can call them that, are the poor folks who have already had an IMS failure within the 10 year / 130,000 limits. They may get some money out of the deal.

Still, I plan to object. Worst case, I gain nothing. Best case, the court finds class member objections persuasive and advises the litigants that it will only consider more owner friendly settlement proposals. While it may be wishful thinking, maybe I'd get some love from the court and find myself in a position to receive some compensation for a future IMS failure. As I said, if I choose exclusion, it isn't reasonable for me to sue on my own.

Last edited by thom4782; 07-21-2013 at 05:41 PM.
thom4782 is offline   Reply With Quote