IMSB Class Action Settlement
 

IMS Class Action Suit 2001 through 2005 owners win - Rennlist Discussion Forums


Anyone familiar with this?

Would love to hear the status of this case. It does appear real: Bruce Eisen v. Porsche Cars North America Inc :: Justia Dockets & Filings.

This looks like a proposed settlement, not final settlement. I did note one thing in the text. It only applies to cars that had IMSB damage within 10 years after they were sold originally. If true, it would leave me out. Even if it did apply, it would only pay me 25% because I bought my car used without a CPO. Of course there is no admission of liability on PCNAs part

What is a CPO?

Certified Pre-Owned

Sorry, can't work out what's going on.

Is this some law firm chancing its luck or has something actually happened?

* if you lease, leased, own or owned a 2001 - 2005 boxster or 911
AND
* you purchased it new or certified pre-owned
AND
* your engine destructed because of an IMS failure
OR
* you replaced / repaired the IMS
AND
* your car is currently less than 10 years old AND under 130,000 miles
OR
* you had to repair or replace because of IMS before 10 years / 130,000 miles
THEN
you may be entitled to $ from PCNA

if it's MY 2000 or older, or MY 2006 or newer; you didn't purchase it new or CPO (from a porsche dealer); currently more than 10 years old or has over 130k miles (or when failure occurred) - you're not getting anything if the settlement is approved.

If it is only for cars under ten years old, then it really only covers 2003-2005.

Cuts out half the cars right off the bat, and according to the sales figures that were posted on this forum, the vast majority of cars.

Ridiculous corporate lawyer BS.:rolleyes:

As others on this thread have noted, this settlement doesn't expose PCNA to much more liability than they had already accepted. But hey, some lawyers make a million or so - gotta love class action suits.

I could be wrong due to some fine print clause, but the proposed settlement does seem to apply to people who bought their cars from a party other than Porsche.

(New Vehicle Purchaser ACPO Purchaser* Used Vehicle Purchaser Not Purchasing ACPO
Up to 50,000 miles 100% 100% 25%
50,001-60,000 miles 90% 100% 25%
60,001-70,000 miles 80% 100% 25%
70,001-80,000 miles 70% 100% 25%
80,001-90,000 miles 60% 100% 25%
90,001-100,000 miles 50% 100% 25%
100,001 – 130,000 miles 40% 40% 25%

Used car buyers without a ACPO get 25 cents on the dollar. If the court waits long enough before approving the settlement, the 10 year limitation will have run and nobody will get anything.

I didnt read the entire thread, but where I read the 10 year limitation indicated that the IMSB or engine repair must have occured before the car reached 10 service years and 138,000 miles.

For example my car is a 2002 and I just replaced the IMSB I am not eligible because the expense has been incurred more than 10 years after the car has been in service. Had I repaired the car last year I would be a class member. It appears that the judgement states if you got 10 years or 138,000 problem free miles then you are not getting anything, but if you repaired your car or experienced a failure within that period you are due compensation.

This is fair given car manufacturers typically extend warranty's to 100K miles or 7-10 years when a problem such as this is found. Honda did this for my 2001 Accord transmission (replaced 3x), the old BMW E46 M3 problem, and BMW 335 problem.

I'm suing Columbia House Records for defrauding me of albums when I was a teenager if anyone is interested.

All this does is to underline the point that all modern Porsches are not be owned for more than 100K miles or you will A) have to be prepared to spend an outrageous sum of money and B) lose nearly all of the value of the car as it approaches that 100K marker.

Which makes the Koreans, also builders of mass produced cars like Porsche, total geniuses for offering 10 year warranties on cars that cost 1/5 the price of Porsche. Err why are people paying the Porsche premium again?

Think about it. It will be easier to sell 20 year old Sonata than it will be sell a 20 year old Carrera. Whose engineering was better given that neither is a racing car nor has a racing engine?

The lawyers taking this case took it on a contingency, meaning they don't get paid unless there is a settlement or judgement thay can collect on. The spent hundreds of thousands of dollars OF THEIR OWN MONEY for experts and other costs which were a straight gamble, if they lost, they lost it all. They also put in huindreds, if not thousands of hours of their time into the case before they see a penny.

No more liability than they have already accepted? When was the last time you heard that PCA gave someone a free motor six years after the warranty expired? The results were great, basically any IMS failure occurring up to six years after the warranty expires will get compensated in whole or in part.

These lawers deserve every penny if not more.

By the way, how much did you have pay to have these lawyers represent YOU. Nothing, right? What are you complaining about.

I agree completely, this ruling forces Porsche to warranty their cars for an additional six years. This should not have been forced upon them rather they should have provided it to their customers showing they stand behind their product.

It would have been nice if they were a little more transparent with this problem and addressing it when it first appeared.

Hahaha. I'm with u JD! Those d-bags stole my chidhood!

I'm in, as long as it will apply to my 8-track tapes as well. I've noticed lately that the sound quality on many of them is starting to degrade rather severely. I've also had a couple of internal magnetic spindle failures resulting in several miles of tape wrapping itself around every moving part in my quadraphonic deck. Someone needs to be held accountable!

So is this the secret decoder ring for IMS issues?

This is the list of VIN's that can make claims:

• Model year 2001 - 2005 Porsche Boxster vehicles manufactured with an IMS between May 4, 2001 and February 21, 2005 with VINs in the following ranges:

o WP0CA29851S620508 - WP0CA29831S620619

o WP0CB29811S660405 - WP0CB29801S660492

o WP0CA29821U625959 - WP0CA29891U627644

o WP0CB29861U664289 - WP0CB29841U665473

o WP0CA29892S620061 - WP0CA29802S620238

o WP0CA29832U620061 - WP0CA29892U626107

o WP0CB29802U660062 - WP0CB29892U664319

....etc., there's long list in the settlement details

What did they put into the Porsches whose VIN's aren't listed? :confused:

^ must be for single row IMS cars with the m96 bearing.
So if you have a dual row you're (mostly) excluded. If you have a the non-upgradeable m97 bearing you're excluded.
If you have no IMSB you're excluded. If you have no Porsche you're excluded.

the lawsuit might be arguing something about Porsche knowing that the single row was worse than leaving the dual row as is.

Just like we've been saying for years, the single row bearing is the main problem.

But until this we were just "fear mongers" making up stuff. Feels good to be proven right. Maybe now all those hard heads that didn't believe the problem existed will actually do something while they still can.

OK, so I have an 11 year old 986S, which excludes me, but I have a 2006 year engine (from a failure with the previous owner), so my engine is less than 10 years old, so I may be back in, but my 2006 engine has the large diameter non-serviceable bearing, so I'm back out again :confused:

I guess I just gotta get this thing up the road to Cleveland soon for the "ultimate solution". Might as well get a 3.4 upgrade while I'm there.