986 Forum - The Community for Porsche Boxster & Cayman Owners - View Single Post - I OBJECT

thom4782 · 08-28-2013, 02:42 PM

THANKS FOR POINTING OUT THAT 1 AND 3 WERE SIMILAR IN MY ORIGINAL POST. SEE CORRECTION BELOW

Today I filed my objection to the proposed IMS settlement. I did this because my 01S did not suffer IMS caused engine damage within the 10 year limit and the settlement provides no benefit to me. My grounds for objection, however, focused on concerns that affect many class members. They were:

1) CORRECTION -- Class members have a reasonable expectation that the Porsche IMS bearings would last the lifetime of their car engines. As such, the terms of the proposed settlement, specifically the 10 year limitation, fail to provide a fair remedy for those class who drive their Boxsters less than 10,000 per year on average.

2) The percentage reimbursement differentials treats unfairly class members whose cars did not come with a CPO but were still covered the Porsche warranty

3) The settlement fails to compensate all those class members who 1) knew of the IMS problem and its costly consequences and 2) proactively installed new aftermarket IMS bearings to substantially reduce the risk of an future IMS failure

If you have similar or different concerns, I would urge you to also object to the settlement. Opting out, which preserves the right to sue for damages individually, is of no benefit. The litigation costs would far exceed the price of installing a new engine. The court's address is:

Clerk of the Court
United States District Court for the Central District of California
312 North Spring Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012

08-28-2013, 02:42 PM	#8
thom4782 Registered User Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Foster City CA Posts: 1,099	Correction THANKS FOR POINTING OUT THAT 1 AND 3 WERE SIMILAR IN MY ORIGINAL POST. SEE CORRECTION BELOW Today I filed my objection to the proposed IMS settlement. I did this because my 01S did not suffer IMS caused engine damage within the 10 year limit and the settlement provides no benefit to me. My grounds for objection, however, focused on concerns that affect many class members. They were: 1) CORRECTION -- Class members have a reasonable expectation that the Porsche IMS bearings would last the lifetime of their car engines. As such, the terms of the proposed settlement, specifically the 10 year limitation, fail to provide a fair remedy for those class who drive their Boxsters less than 10,000 per year on average. 2) The percentage reimbursement differentials treats unfairly class members whose cars did not come with a CPO but were still covered the Porsche warranty 3) The settlement fails to compensate all those class members who 1) knew of the IMS problem and its costly consequences and 2) proactively installed new aftermarket IMS bearings to substantially reduce the risk of an future IMS failure If you have similar or different concerns, I would urge you to also object to the settlement. Opting out, which preserves the right to sue for damages individually, is of no benefit. The litigation costs would far exceed the price of installing a new engine. The court's address is: Clerk of the Court United States District Court for the Central District of California 312 North Spring Street Los Angeles, CA 90012