http://www.yourlawyer.com/topics/overview/defective_door_latches Sat, 21 Nov 2009 18:41:24 -0800 pixel-app en http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/17042 Mon, 28 Sep 2009 00:00:00 -0700 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/17042 Chinese drywall.  The disclosure was made during a conference call conducted by KB Home last Friday to discuss earnings.

Chinese drywall poured into the U.S. between 1999 and 2007 because of the high demand created by the housing boom. Imports accelerated when the rebuilding that followed Hurricane Charley in Florida in 2004, and Hurricane Katrina along the Gulf Coast in 2005, created a drywall shortage. According to The Wall Street Journal, some 500 million pounds of Chinese drywall was imported to the U.S. during the housing boom. That means as many as 100,000 homes throughout the country could have been built with the material.

Gases emitted from Chinese drywall are being blamed for significant property damage, including damage to HVAC systems, smoke detectors, electrical wiring, metal plumbing components, and other household appliances. These gases also produce a sulfurous odor that permeates homes, and cause metals, including air conditioning coils and even jewelry, to corrode. People living with Chinese drywall have also suffered eye, respiratory and sinus problems that may be linked to the gases.  So far, the Consumer Products Safety Commission has received 1,311 Chinese drywall complaints from homeowners in 26 states and the District of Columbia.

During Friday's conference call, KB Home executives said most of its homes reporting drywall problems were located in Florida, and were built between 2006 and 2007.   The company said the allegedly defective drywall was installed  in homes by subcontractors.

The homebuilder said it estimated that its Chinese drywall repair costs will total about $10 million.  It has recorded a charge of $6 million in the third quarter to increase its  warranty liability.  KB Home said it intended to seek reimbursement from various sources for these costs, but has not yet recorded any amounts for potential recoveries because the matter is still in its early stages.

KB Home is just the latest builder to provide a tally of homes built with potentially defective Chinese drywall.  Earlier this year, Miami-based Lennar Homes acknowledged that about 400 homes it built in Florida have issues that could be related to Chinese drywall.  WCI Communities, which filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, has also said 200 of its homes were the subject of drywall complaints.  The Florida builder's bankruptcy plan includes a Chinese Drywall Trust, which WCI will fund with $900,000. That money will help to offset the cost of litigation against insurers and other companies involved in the Chinese drywall disaster.  The firm's reorganization plan was approved in August.

]]> http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/10528 Mon, 15 Aug 2005 00:00:00 -0700 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/10528
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said Monday that it was examining the 2004-05 model years of the SUV after receiving the report that the exterior door handle does not allow the door to latch properly.

The preliminary investigation involves more than 53,000 vehicles.

An owner reported his daughter's hand was injured while riding in the SUV when the door swung open and then shut, jamming her hand between the door and door frame.

NHTSA said the automaker issued a technical service bulletin to dealers in June asking them to correct a problem with the outside door handle sticking in the open position.

Volkswagen spokesman Tony Fouladpour said the company was cooperating with the investigation. He said the vehicle has an alert system for when any doors are ajar.]]> http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8663 Tue, 17 Aug 2004 00:00:00 -0700 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8663
The Canadian law firm of Will Barristers filed the suit Monday in Ontario Superior Court on behalf of defendant Maurice Poulin, who lives in northern Ontario. The firm is pursuing class-action status and says 300,000 to 400,000 Ford vehicles in Canada may have defective door latches.

The suit seeks the cost to replace all defective latches on those Ford vehicles in Canada, an amount lawyers for the plaintiff say is $994 for a four-door vehicle. The suit also seeks punitive damages of about $403 million.

The suit says Ford tried to hide the true nature of the consequences of the involved safety-related defect, and that senior executives called off a recall to fix the vehicles even after Ford engineers determined in March 2000 that such action was warranted.

The recall could have involved several million vehicles. The Canadian lawsuit says Ford installed defective door latches in model years 1997-2000 on the following vehicles: the Ford F-150 and F-250 Super Light Duty pickups and Expedition SUV, and the Lincoln Blackwood pickup and Navigator SUV.

Ford said Tuesday, as it has on previous occasions, that the outside door handles and latch assemblies on the vehicles are safe and comply fully with all applicable government and industry standards.

The documentation highlighted by plaintiffs attorneys, who make a living suing companies like Ford, is being misconstrued, the automaker said in a statement. The documentation shows that when Ford became aware of a potential problem with the spring torque configuration for the outside handles on certain F-150 trucks, it promptly investigated the issue, interviewed the suppliers, reconfirmed the inventory, took appropriate steps to ensure compliance and retested the handles and springs.

The suit also names several suppliers as defendants.

Ford, the nations second-biggest automaker, has been hit with several lawsuits in the United States in which plaintiffs claim latch failures led to fatal accidents that involved doors flying open.

Ford spokeswoman Kathleen Vokes said she had no immediate information on how many of the suits had been dismissed or settled and how many were pending. ]]> http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8215 Tue, 04 May 2004 00:00:00 -0700 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8215
The number two US automaker overruled its own safety engineers' recommendation to recall up to 4.1 million pickups and sport utility vehicles that were found to have substandard door latches, reported the Detroit Free Press citing to internal company documents that have surfaced in recent court cases.

A Ford safety engineering team determined in March 2000 that door latches on certain pick-ups, including its best-selling F-150 series truck, did not meet federal safety standards, the documents show.

Ford ordered immediate design changes for future vehicles, but decided against a recall which could have cost up to 527 million dollars after the company determined the latches could pass a rarely used, alternative compliance test.

The company now faces a slew of product liability lawsuits stemming from fatal accidents in which malfunctioning vehicle doors allegedly contributed to the death or injury of motorists, and or, passengers.

Last week, Ford settled two wrongful death lawsuits in Texas for an undisclosed sum. The attorneys in the case had argued that defective latches contributed to the deaths of the two women during a roll-over accident involving an F-150.

Lawyers suing Ford say the company's internal documents paint a detailed picture of an automaker failing to address a safety issue because of financial concerns.

Regulators are studying the Ford documents, and have approached Ford about the matter, but indicated it is too early to say where those inquiries might lead.

"We had the issue brought to our attention by one of the expert witnesses advising the lawyers in one of these cases, and we're looking at the situation," said Rae Tyson, spokesman for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.]]> http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8213 Sun, 02 May 2004 00:00:00 -0700 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8213
A Ford safety engineering team determined in March 2000 that door latches on certain 1997-2000 model light trucks including popular F-150, F-250, Expedition and Lincoln Navigator models didnt meet federal safety standards, the documents show.

Ford ordered immediate design changes for future vehicles. But the automaker decided against a recall which could have cost up to $527 million after the company determined the latches could pass a rarely used alternative compliance test.

The decision could haunt Ford, which now faces a slew of product liability lawsuits stemming from fatal accidents where vehicle doors flew open and plaintiffs lawyers are blaming latch failure.

Federal safety officials, meanwhile, are reviewing allegations that Ford skirted federal laws by failing to recall the 4.1 million vehicles and alert the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration of the latch issue.

Ford maintains the door latches are safe and in compliance with federal laws.

Fords extensive crash testing of the F-Series truck demonstrates that the doors remain closed during a variety of crashes, said Ford spokeswoman Kathleen Vokes.

Compliance to (federal safety standards), crash testing, and real-world data from years of on-road experience show the vehicles, including the door latches, to be safe.

Lawyers suing Ford say the companys internal documents paint a detailed picture of an automaker failing to address a safety issue because of financial concerns.

Its clear to me that Ford realized the product was dangerous and should be recalled, said Jeff Wigington, a lawyer representing victims in door-latch lawsuits.

The internal documents, produced by Ford under court order, have emerged in court cases involving deaths and injuries in crashes when vehicle doors have flown open.

The memos and documents provide a rare glimpse into the decision-making process of an automaker confronted by a safety concern. They show the problem had been investigated by a team of engineers who discovered a manufacturing error by a parts supplier and recommended a recall to replace the handles on vehicles already on the road.

The paper trail

Parts supplier Donnelly Corp. used the wrong specifications as it made a batch of 6 million door handles, Ford concluded. As a result, the latches could come open at crash forces well below those required in federal safety tests.

A March 6, 2000, memo by Ford engineer Bharat Malhotra summarized the investigation into the door handles, the mistake by Donnelly and a possible fix.

It is recommended that a campaign be issued to fix the painted handle vehicles manufactured during 1996-2000 (MY 97-00), Malhotra wrote.

Every car and truck sold in the United States must pass the door-latch test, known as Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 206. The test requires door handles to be engineered to withstand a force of 30 Gs, or 30 times as strong as the Earths gravity.

NHTSA uses a procedure sanctioned by the Society of Automotive Engineers, known as Recommended Practice J839b, to ensure compliance to standard 206.

Manufacturers must certify that door handles comply before vehicles can be sold.

If an automaker discovers that a vehicle is out of compliance with the safety standard, the manufacturer must recall it and provide a fix at no charge to owners, according to the federal Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

Recall still planned

The issue passed from Fords Critical Concerns Review Group to its Technical Review Committee and finally to the Field Review Committee, the companys executive body that has the authority to make a final decision to recall.

As of March 27, 2000, a recall was still being planned to increase the torque in the springs of the door handles by 130 percent, the internal documents show.

Less than a week later, on March 30, 2000, a memo from Ford recall coordinator Kelly Zubieta indicated the recall, which had already been assigned a formal company tracking number Safety Recall 00S08 was not warranted.

THIS PROGRAM HAS BEEN CANCELLED AND NO PREVENT ACTION CLOSURE IS NECESSARY, Zubieta wrote.

The recall was canceled after a Ford engineer, James Salmon, determined the latches could pass an alternate compliance test, according to testimony in an April 2004 door-latch trial.

The other test known as a crash pulse was first approved in 1967, according to a letter to General Motors Corp. from Dr. William Haddon, chief of the National Highway Safety Bureau, NHTSAs predecessor.

The alternate test requires door latches to stand up to a brief impulse rather than continuous force.

Plaintiffs attorneys argue that the 1967 GM pulse test is not sanctioned by NHTSA. They cite a 1975 letter from NHTSA to Mercedes-Benz that indicates the agency will accept only the continuous force 30-G test to verify compliance.

Any government inertia load compliance testing will be done in accordance with paragraph 5 of SAE Recommended Practice J839b, NHTSA wrote.

Latch safety disputed

Even if the door handles met the federal requirement, research published by Salmon suggests they would not be safe in a real-world crash. In a 1997 paper published by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Salmon estimated real-world crashes can generate forces on door handles as high as 180 Gs, six times the force required to meet the federal safety standard.

Company documents indicate the door latch in question was redesigned in 2000 to withstand a force of 400 Gs. The new latches were immediately shipped to assembly lines and were distributed to dealers as replacement parts. But owners of the 1997-2000 trucks were not notified of questions arising about the door latches.

Ford says the original latches are safe, and the redesigned latches are simply an example of continuous improvement.

The documentation shows that when Ford became aware of a potential problem with the spring torque configuration for the outside handles on certain F-150 trucks, it promptly investigated the issue, interviewed the suppliers, reconfirmed the inventory, took appropriate steps to ensure compliance, and retested the handles and springs, said Vokes, the Ford spokeswoman.

All of this extensive work reconfirmed that Ford was correct in concluding that this latch complies with all applicable federal standards and is safe and appropriate for use.

Legal troubles mount

Even so, lawsuits alleging safety problems with the latch are mounting.

On April 21, the automaker reached a confidential cash settlement with the families of two sisters killed in a Feb. 15, 2002, rollover crash involving a 1999 F-150. The settlement came just before closing arguments in a four-week trial in Zapata, Texas.

At least 15 other suits are pending or have been settled involving injuries or deaths from crashes in which Ford truck doors have come open. The cases include:

A class action suit involving owners of 1997 through 2001 Ford F-150, F-250, Expedition, and Lincoln Navigator and Blackwood trucks. A separate complaint against Ford seeking class-action status was filed March 5 in U.S. District Court in Texarkana, Texas.

No indication of failures

During testimony in the Garcia case, retired Ford executive Lou Camp, former director of the companys Auto Safety Office, said there was no accident data that indicated latches were failing during real-world crashes.

I have no credible reason to believe anything Ive heard in this trial or anything else that says theres an actual occurrence of inertial opening of a door that caused anyone to be killed, Camp said.

If I knew that, we would have done something. I have yet to see any instance that leads me to believe that we would have prevented any deaths had we changed these handles.

Andrew Gilberg, a former Ford engineer, has testified as a door-latch expert in the lawsuits. Now general manager of Teknacon, an engineering consulting firm in Kennesaw, Ga., Gilberg said he knew of no other auto company that has used the crash pulse test Ford used to verify compliance with federal latch safety standards.

Ford realized it was about to spend a half-billion dollars on a recall, and it was looking for any reason not to do so, Gilberg said. They figured it was time to look for an alternative means of compliance.

Gilberg wrote to NHTSA on March 24, citing the court documents and arguing the door latches are defective. NHTSA has not responded to the letter, Gilberg said.

NHTSA spokesman Tim Hurd said the letter was being examined by Kenneth Weinstein, head of the agencys vehicle compliance and defects investigation offices.

Our enforcement people encourage people to provide us whatever they know about potential defects, Hurd said. Its a matter under review. ]]> http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8640 Mon, 12 Apr 2004 00:00:00 -0700 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8640
One case, however, stands out from the rest.

In December 2002, a Duval County, Texas, jury found that a crushed roof caused the side doors of a 2000-model SuperCab to burst open, ejecting Paul Alaniz and Laura Benavides to their deaths from the rolling pickup.

The verdict is believed to be the first time that a jury linked roof deformation to occupant ejection in a rollover accident.

Detroits Big Three automakers have long maintained that ejection is an entirely separate issue from the growing debate over federal standards governing roof strength.

But in Benavides v. Ford, the jury ruled that a crushed roof forced open the drivers door and the rear-hinged passenger door on the same side.

It was clearly a survivable accident if the doors had stayed closed, said the attorney for the Alaniz family.

Ford declined interview requests. In court, the automakers lawyers argued that the driver, Paul Alaniz, was solely at fault because he consumed alcohol on the evening of the accident, then lost control of his F-150 on a two-lane highway about 75 miles southwest of Corpus Christi.

The jury didnt agree, and awarded the Alaniz and Benavides families a combined $225 million one of the biggest automotive product-liability judgments on record.

Ford chose not to appeal the case and, instead, negotiated a confidential settlement, Wigington said.

A critical piece of evidence introduced at trial was a four-minute video of an F-150 SuperCab ejected off a moving dolly at about 45 miles per hour.

Ford commissioned an outside firm to do the test, primarily to show the jury how severe the accident was that killed Alaniz and Benavides.

Instead, the plaintiffs attorneys offered the video into evidence.

In the dolly-rollover test, the SuperCabs doors popped open on the drivers side, and test dummies were partially ejected from the vehicle.

Because of its barn-door style center-opening doors, the SuperCab has no B-pillars supporting the roof in the center of the truck.

Door latches failed

At the Benavides trial, former Ford engineer John Stilson, testified that latches fastening the front and rear drivers side doors failed because the roof caved in.

On the second roll, the drivers door latch failed because of the manner in which the roof crushed, said Stilson, testifying on behalf of the plaintiffs.

Each year, more than 26,000 people are killed or seriously injured in rollover accidents, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Nearly 7,000 deaths and serious injuries involve accidents where the vehicle roof crushed.

NHTSA only considers crushed roofs a factor in rollovers accidents where the occupants arent ejected. Safety experts, however, say deformed roofs do play a role in rollover ejections.

The roof-crush mode influences not only roof deformation, it can influence the risk of ejection, said Ken Digges of the National Crash Analysis Center at George Washington University, which is conducting an extensive roof crush study for NHTSA.

Crush-related ejections are usually tied to windshields or windows breaking in a rollover, with occupants ejected out the opening, said former General Motors Corp. engineer Donald Friedman, a frequent plaintiffs witness in roof crush lawsuits.

High rollover rate faulted

Critics claim the Ford F-150 SuperCab appears to have an abnormally high rate of ejections in rollovers. (The lawsuits against the SuperCab predate Fords redesign of its F-Series lineup for the 2004 model year.)

A total of 134 people were fatally ejected from F-Series SuperCabs from 1998 to 2001, according to a Ford internal document introduced at the Benavides trial.

The CrewCab version of the F-Series, which has four conventional doors with front hinges, accounted for 71 fatal ejections during the same period.

Even if an occupant is not ejected, the lack of B-pillars in the SuperCab weakens the overall roof structure, said the plaintiffs attorney.

Everyone, including everyone at Ford, knows the roof structure on these trucks simply will not protect people in rollover accidents, Watts said after a Texas jury awarded $18 million to Mario Castro, who was paralyzed in a SuperCab rollover.

In the Benavides trial, Ford lawyer Rosewell Page III said the SuperCabs roof exceeded Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 216 by 43 percent. The vehicle was reasonably safe, he said.

But the circumstances of the accident convinced the jury otherwise.

On the evening of July 20, 2001, Paul Alaniz, 35, drove to a club in Kingsville, Texas, with three friends: Laura Benavides, 20; Juan Flores, 26; and Eluterio Elizondo, 24.

Alaniz, a physical-education teacher and youth football coach, drank at least two beers during the night out, according to trial testimony. His blood-alcohol level was 0.04 percent, half of the legal limit in Texas.

On the return trip, Alaniz drove with Benavides seated behind him. Flores and Elizondo were in the front and rear seats on the passenger side.

About 2:30 a.m., Alaniz lost control of the F-150. The truck tipped on the passenger side, and rolled three times off State Highway 2285, according to court records.

The roof on the drivers side the trailing side in the rollover was crushed severely. Both doors on the drivers side came open. Alaniz and Benavides were ejected an estimated 100 feet into a field of sagebrush and cactus.

Seat belts not used

But the doors on the passenger side stayed closed. Both Flores and Elizondo stayed in the vehicle and were uninjured.

None of the four were wearing seat belts.

The two on the side where the roof crushed and the doors popped open, they died, said Tony Alaniz, Pauls younger brother. The two on the right side where the doors stayed closed, they lived.

Page, Fords lawyer, blamed Paul Alaniz for the wreck.

If Mr. Alaniz had not lost control of this vehicle, there would be no accident and there would be no death, Page said.

The wreck, he said, was a violent accident.

Accidents happen every day, Page said in court. People die on the highway.

Tony Alaniz said his older brother was hardly a reckless driver.

He never had a speeding ticket in his life, never had a single citation for anything, he said. He didnt fall asleep. He went off the road, overcorrected, and the truck rolled over.

He wears a gold chain that he took off his brothers body at the accident scene nearly three years ago. Last month, Tony Alaniz visited the site, marked by two white, wooden crosses on the roadside.

Its just something thats so hard to accept, he said. You know, I had that same truck. Paul liked it so much he bought one just like it.

He sold his SuperCab after the accident, and now drives a four-door sedan. ]]> http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8212 Sun, 17 Nov 1996 00:00:00 -0800 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8212
The Lowndes County jury award was the largest ever returned against General Motors in a negligence lawsuit.

Hardy, 35, has been a paraplegic since his Chevrolet Blazer went out of control on U.S 80 in 1991. His lawsuit contended he was thrown out of the vehicle as a result of a faulty door latch.

GM lawyers said in the trial earlier this year that Hardy contributed to his own injuries by not wearing his seat belt. They also said he was thrown through a window and not out the door.

The car manufacturer also suggested that Hardy had been drinking alcohol prior to the wreck. Hardy said he had one beer before the accident.

GM was asking for a new trial.]]> http://www.yourlawyer.com/topics/overview/defective_door_latches Sun, 17 Nov 1996 00:00:00 -0800 http://www.yourlawyer.com/topics/overview/defective_door_latches Defective Door Latches A Lowndes County, Alabama, jury assessed $150 million in punitive damages against the General Motors Corporation on Monday, June 3, 1996, for selling vehicles with dangerously defective door latches. Alex Hardy, 35, has been a paraplegic since his Chevrolet Blazer went out of control on U.S 80 in 1991. His lawsuit contended he was thrown out of the vehicle as a result of a faulty door latch.

Approximately 112 people have been killed or injured when the "type III" door latches on GM vehicles failed, resulting in occupants being ejected from the vehicles.

GM's own engineers reported in the 1980s that the performance of the type III door latch was a "problem," "substandard," and "unacceptable," and that the door latch even failed GM's own crash tests. A 1982 study by a GM engineer concluded that there would be 18,000 door openings each year in wrecks involving GM vehicles equipped with type III door latches.

GM considered and rejected a recall, and the documents indicate that it destroyed its entire inventory of type III door latches. GM deliberately chose not to recall and fix the defective door latches because company documents reveal that GM thought a recall would cost too much, about $916 million. GM routinely settled defective door latch cases until 1994.

Mitsubishi was also found guilty of concealing evidence about its knowledge of door latch failures in its vehicles. The trial court found Mitsubishi's concealment of evidence "deliberate and intentional" and labeled their conduct as a "fraudulent use of the judicial system. Additionally, it has been alleged that certain Ford vehicles are not compliant with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

The allegation focuses on the vehicles having a defective door latch, which may open in the event of an accident, with the potential for catastrophic results. It is further alleged that Ford knew of this defect but has not initiated a recall. It is estimated that there are over 3,000,000 vehicles with this known problem.

If you or a loved one  has been injured by a defective door latch, please fill out the form at the right for a free case evaluation by a qualified product liability attorney.]]>