I OBJECT - to the IMS Settlement

[thom4782]

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

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

[thstone]

Are 1) and 3) the same?

[dghii]

1. is for dual row and 3. is for single row...

[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

[Perfectlap]

Originally Posted by southernstar

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.

Brad

This logic reminds me of the reliability rankings that put Porsches near the top -- except for the Cayenne. Why? Because that's the only car that seems to be be driven daily. Similarly, the age of the car is not really a good barometer for bad design. As we see the prices of these cars falling fast, the new owners will start ramping up the mileage at a rate not seen in the first 10 years.

I predict many Boxster/Carrera owners who will not endure the expense of a bumped up clutch/ims/rms job because the added costs don't fit within their budgets, will see a markedly different rate of IMS failures than those who owned during the first 10 years -- cars sold well before they reached 100K miles. I also suspect very strongly, that 2005-2008 cars that have their clutches replaced without ever addressing the IMS, even if you remove one of the seals to allow for splash lubrication, will also see significantly higher failure rates than those owners saw in the their first 10 years of ownership.

Point is as mileage goes higher, the flawe in this design will become obvious, particularly how there was/is no "plan B" for out-of-warranty 2005-2008 cars that require the extremely expensive hassle of splitting open the engine. Porsche knows full well that a sealed bearing will not last indefinitely.

[madmods]

...........................

[Trey T]

Amen! It's important to understand the data vs the interpretation we hear in mass-media including online forums. It's one of those important skill to analyze data instead of taking in what ppl tell you.

Originally Posted by Perfectlap

This logic reminds me of the reliability rankings that put Porsches near the top -- except for the Cayenne. Why? Because that's the only car that seems to be be driven daily. Similarly, the age of the car is not really a good barometer for bad design. As we see the prices of these cars falling fast, the new owners will start ramping up the mileage at a rate not seen in the first 10 years.

...

[Homeboy981]

PM sent to file Objection Letter.

Not holding my breath…or you would have to ask for Blue Boy!

At least it beats taking it in the keister and then having to sit down!

[madmods]

...............................

[thom4782]

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

[Foydawg]

Originally Posted by thom4782

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

Would you go into more detail on how to file an objection? Mine failed just outside the 10-year limit with only 52000 miles on the clock.

[Johnny Danger]

I don't know what all this legal fuss is about ? Just contact Porsche like I did, and they'll send you a reimbursement check for the IMS retro-fit like they did me.

[thom4782]

To file an objection, you simply write a letter to the court using the address I provided. In the letter, you tell the court your reasons why it should reject the settlement. My letter was one page with 3 bullet point reasons.

PS: I also added the following reference at the top

RE: Objection to Proposed Class Action Settlement in the Matter of Eisen v. Porsche Cars North America, Inc.
CV11-09405 CAS (FFMx)

[Homeboy981]

Originally Posted by thom4782

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

Since I am CURRENTLY suffering the dreaded failure. I would like to know what you wrote to the court so that I may file a similar petition.

Good idea BTW.

[Perfectlap]

Man I didn't even get an invite to the party...

[madmods]

..............................