[southernstar]

There are bound to be winners and losers in any 'settlement', but the risk in 'going for broke' is that the plaintiffs may end up losing the case and being stuck with not only no compensation for anyone, but huge costs. Are there people excluded? Yes. But if failure does not occur within 10 years of delivery in a certain car, there would be a very strong argument for Porsche that the IMS bearing in that car was not fundamentally flawed. As to people who took preventative measures, yes they are out the money for the same. However, for those who have dual-row bearings, there is a very strong argument that the design was not below a workmanlike standard (as much less than 1% made claims or reported failures regardless of the age of vehicle, mileage, or maintenance schedule). For those who chose to replace anyway, of course they are on their own (and I fully intend to when I need to replace the clutch).

For those with single row bearings who did an 'upgrade', as the owner is unable to establish that his/her vehicle's IMS bearing would have ever failed, one can see why the plaintiffs chose to settle rather than litigate that issue. If, however, one is able to show that the bearing that was removed had failed (or was failing), then if replaced within the 10 year span, you should be covered and entitled to compensation on the schedule agreed to.

Brad