Class action Settlement papers
 

Received Claim forms today for the Class action settlement from Eislen v. PCNA. Unfortunately the cost of repairs due to paranoia or as a preventive measure are not covered. So pretty much unless you blew up can prove it was cause by the IMS and have all the repair cost paperwork you are SOL:eek:.

Still glad I just change mine because!:rolleyes:

Got my papers today too and used them to wipe my a@@! What a joke of a settlement, IF the court approves it. Porsche should pay to have every single 2001- 2005 cars in the class retrofitted with the LN bearing as a good faith gesture. Something along those lines would restore my faith in Porsche engineering and customer service. Right now I don't have much respect for the company. I have no doubt they cut corners for a few years just to save a dime at the expense of their reputation. Screw Porsche. I'll drive mine til she dies, which could be tomorrow, and then I will try something else.

Ditto mine showed up today, too. In fact they sent me two copies. If I read it correctly if your engine detonates due to the IMS after 7/17/13 and it is more than 10 years old, you loose. So, I guess my 2002 is no better off than before I got the letter(s).

I got one today too, so basically if your car is more than 10 years old or has over 130,000 miles then you are not covered (which is the case with my 2003 with 79k miles). In my case wouldn't it be better off if I exclude myself from this class action settlement so I reserve the right to suit PCNA in the future, since I know this settlement won't benefit me in any way?

It's great how Porsche needs to be sued to extend their warranty where as other manufacturers do it willfully. Honda warrantied the power train on my 01 accord for 100k miles and then replaced the faulty transmission at 112k miles free of charge.

It was nice to get a letter

That is how I read it. My car is 10+ years old too. If you don't exclude yourself, then you lose your future rights on this issue.

The other option is to do nothing. You will lose your future rights...but so what...are you actually going to sue Porsche on this? I view the expected value of the gains of a future individual lawsuit as being less than the cost of the envelope and stamp to send in the "opt-out".




/

I believe if you read into page 4 even if your car is ten years old you fit into the settlement at a reduce rate up to 130,000. Its after that your on your own. The big thing that affects most of us is we did not by our cars from a Porsche dealer under a Porsche certified program. That reduces most of our reimbursement to 25% maximum regardless of mileage.

I just got my letter...the 25% does suck, but it's still something. My 2002 Boxster S cost 14,000 to repair...so "if" this happens, I could be looking at 3500. Not holding my breath, but sure would be nice.

I wonder why only to 2005? The 06's and on up had IMS failures...didn't they?

Porsche redesigned the IMS for the new M97 engine (some late M96 engines also have the new design) which hit the streets at about that time. The new design is much more reliable but not infallible. There are substantially fewer failures for the new design based on murky figures (only Porsche knows the exact numbers). Something like 10% failure for the 2001-2005 IMS and 1% for the 2006-2008 IMS. So 2006 and newer were not part of the class action suit. Depending on the build date, a 2005 Boxster could have the old or new design. 2006 was all new.

I have an 04... Should I try to get some money?

Have you suffered any out of pocket expenses due to a failure?

Nope. Not yet at least

what letter,,have not gotten one

Porsche of North America has a law suit against them, which has been turned into a class action suit that is going to settlement. A settlement claim is being sent to all registered owners of a 2001 to 2005 Boxster or 911. Called the Eisen IMS Settlement case no. CV11-9405 CAS (FFMx) (C.D. Cal.). You can see the claim and get information on it online at WWW.eisenimssettlement.com.

Hope this helps. They only started showing up to owners on Friday 7/19/13. If you have one of these cars and have had service recorded at a Porsche dealer or purchased your car at a Porsche dealer you should get one soon.

I would hope that there is a large number of 986 owners, who either object to the proposed settlement or elect to exclude themselves from the settlement, so the court does not approve the proposal.

In my case, I have an 01S that 1) I purchased from a private party when it was just 2 years old, 2) has 105,000 to date, and 3) has not suffered an IMS failure. At best, I would receive 25 cents on the dollar if the car's IMS failed before it passes 130,000.

This makes the decision easy for me. I will object to the settlement. I've decided to choose this option for two reasons. There is a chance, albeit small, that the court will only approve a settlement that is more favorable to 986 owners. Second, even if the court approves the proposal, it isn't economically rational to sue on my own. The litigation costs would far exceed the total cost of buying an engine and installing it in my car.

I understood there was a deadline of 10 years after the in-service date. So if that is the case, then you wouldn't be entitled to anything in the event of a failure.



/

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.

I think I'll opt-out on this settlement as it doesn't benefit me at all...

Based on what everyone has been posting I guess I will opt out also. I wonder since they sent me two letters if I can opt out twice? <GRIN>