Takata Asks Court to Stall Airbag Victims' Lawsuits Against Automakers

by Matt Posky

Published: August 9th, 2017

takata asks court to stall airbag victims lawsuits against automakers

Takata, the airbag supplier whose cost-cutting measures ended up killing people, issued a request on Wednesday to suspend lawsuits against automakers filed by those injured by its faulty inflators.

Without the injunction, Takata claims the rampant litigation would prohibit management from completing the sale of the company’s viable operations to Key Safety Systems for $1.6 billion, threatening the supply of air bag inflators meant to replace already recalled ones (which may include all previously repaired units, pending an EPA investigation).

Obviously, the injured parties want restitution. Plaintiffs’ lawyers call the proposed injunction “an abuse of the bankruptcy laws for the benefit of all of the world’s largest automobile manufacturers.” The fear is that Takata’s request will delay consideration of numerous lawsuits for several months to a year, which is a long time to wait when you’ve been wronged.

Takata and TK Holdings Inc. filed for bankruptcy in June after suffering through the biggest recall in automotive history and tens of billions of dollars in outstanding liabilities. While the bankruptcy automatically delayed hundreds of lawsuits against TK Holdings for wrongful death, injuries, and breach of consumer protection laws, the company still sought a preliminary injunction to stall lawsuits against automakers that used its inflators.

According to Reuters, the committee that represents injured drivers said in court papers that the injunction would possess “human consequences” and prevent people from pursuing important compensation — citing a grisly example of a 23-year-old New Jersey woman whose quadriplegia resulted from brain injuries sustained from a Takata inflator. The woman’s lawyers estimated her lifetime financial loss would be roughly $18 million, which does not include damages for pain and suffering.

The supplier initially set aside $125 million to compensate those injured by its faulty safety systems as part of its guilty plea. But there is no way that sum could possibly be sufficient and it’s unlikely the $850 million reserved to compensate automakers for recalls will be, either.

Earlier this week, Nissan agreed to pay a $98 million settlement to “significantly increase customer outreach and to accelerate recall remedy completion rates for Takata airbag inflator recalls.”

In June, a federal judge granted preliminary approval to similar settlements with BMW AG, Toyota Motor Corp, Subaru Corp, and Mazda Motor Corp — totaling $553 million and affecting 15.8 million vehicles outfitted with Takata inflators.

“Nissan, as well as Toyota, BMW, Mazda and Subaru previously, have done right by their customers in reaching these agreements,” read the plaintiff committee’s announcement. “They stand in contrast to other auto manufacturers that continue to avoid responsibility to the detriment of their customers. We will continue prosecuting our claims against Honda and Ford to make sure all affected consumers receive the recourse they deserve.”

All the settlements reached include an outreach program to contact owners of recalled vehicles, address the low number of completed repairs, as well as compensation for economic losses for plaintiffs. There is also the potential for residual funds to go toward rental vehicles for some owners, as well as a customer support program.

That said, automakers including BMW, Ford, Honda, and Toyota agreed in the court filing that a six-month delay in lawsuits, would “advance the interests of their customers and the safety of the motoring public by increasing the likelihood” the Takata restructuring will succeed and “protect the supply of replacement inflators and diminish the risk of future deaths and injuries.”

Takata’s faulty inflators are linked to at least 18 deaths and over 180 injuries. The supplier claims it expects 125 million vehicles worldwide to be recalled by 2019.

[Image: Takata]

#Airbags #AutomotiveIndustry #HotLegalAction #LawAndOrder #Lawsuits #Recalls #Safety #Takata #TKHoldings

Matt Posky

A staunch consumer advocate tracking industry trends and regulation. Before joining TTAC, Matt spent a decade working for marketing and research firms based in NYC. Clients included several of the world’s largest automakers, global tire brands, and aftermarket part suppliers. Dissatisfied with the corporate world and resentful of having to wear suits everyday, he pivoted to writing about cars. Since then, that man has become an ardent supporter of the right-to-repair movement, been interviewed on the auto industry by national radio broadcasts, driven more rental cars than anyone ever should, participated in amateur rallying events, and received the requisite minimum training as sanctioned by the SCCA. Handy with a wrench, Matt grew up surrounded by Detroit auto workers and managed to get a pizza delivery job before he was legally eligible. He later found himself driving box trucks through Manhattan, guaranteeing future sympathy for actual truckers. He continues to conduct research pertaining to the automotive sector as an independent contractor and has since moved back to his native Michigan, closer to where the cars are born. A contrarian, Matt claims to prefer understeer — stating that front and all-wheel drive vehicles cater best to his driving style.

More by Matt Posky

Comments

Join the conversation

2 of 6 comments

Vulpine on Aug 10, 2017

To me, the stupidity of all that litigation is that the people are suing the wrong companies; they're suing automakers who have little choice in the matter since the majority of their airbags came from Takata. The only reason they're suing the automakers is because they know they won't get squat out of Takata. All those lawsuits against the automakers themselves should be thrown out of court unless it can be proven that they were complicit in the original failures.

Like Reply
Cognoscenti on Aug 10, 2017

I'm curious: who is providing airbags for NEW vehicles from BMW AG, Toyota Motor Corp, Subaru Corp, and Mazda Motor Corp?

Like Reply

Recent Comments

Kmars2009 I rented one last fall while visiting Ohio. Not a bad car...but not a great car either. I think it needs a new version. But CUVs are King... unfortunately!
Ajla Remember when Cadillac introduced an entirely new V8 and proceeded to install it in only 800 cars before cancelling everything?
Bouzouki Cadillac (aka GM!!) made so many mistakes over the past 40 years, right up to today, one could make a MBA course of it. Others have alluded to them, there is not enough room for me to recite them in a flowing, cohesive manner.Cadillac today is literally a tarted-up Chevrolet. They are nice cars, and the "aura" of the Cadillac name still works on several (mostly female) consumers who are not car enthusiasts.The CT4 and CT5 offer superlative ride and handling, and even performance--but, it is wrapped in sheet metal that (at least I think) looks awful, with (still) sub-par interiors. They are niche cars. They are the last gasp of the Alpha platform--which I have been told by people close to it, was meant to be a Pontiac "BMW 3-series". The bankruptcy killed Pontiac, but the Alpha had been mostly engineered, so it was "Cadillac-ized" with the new "edgy" CTS styling.Most Cadillacs sold are crossovers. The most profitable "Cadillac" is the Escalade (note that GM never jack up the name on THAT!).The question posed here is rather irrelevant. NO ONE has "a blank check", because GM (any company or corporation) does not have bottomless resources.Better styling, and superlative "performance" (by that, I mean being among the best in noise, harshness, handling, performance, reliablity, quality) would cost a lot of money.Post-bankruptcy GM actually tried. No one here mentioned GM's effort to do just that: the "Omega" platform, aka CT6.The (horribly misnamed) CT6 was actually a credible Mercedes/Lexus competitor. I'm sure it cost GM a fortune to develop (the platform was unique, not shared with any other car. The top-of-the-line ORIGINAL Blackwing V8 was also unique, expensive, and ultimately...very few were sold. All of this is a LOT of money).I used to know the sales numbers, and my sense was the CT6 sold about HALF the units GM projected. More importantly, it sold about half to two thirds the volume of the S-Class (which cost a lot more in 201x)Many of your fixed cost are predicated on volume. One way to improve your business case (if the right people want to get the Green Light) is to inflate your projected volumes. This lowers the unit cost for seats, mufflers, control arms, etc, and makes the vehicle more profitable--on paper.Suppliers tool up to make the number of parts the carmaker projects. However, if the volume is less than expected, the automaker has to make up the difference.So, unfortunately, not only was the CT6 an expensive car to build, but Cadillac's weak "brand equity" limited how much GM could charge (and these were still pricey cars in 2016-18, a "base" car was ).Other than the name, the "Omega" could have marked the starting point for Cadillac to once again be the standard of the world. Other than the awful name (Fleetwood, Elegante, Paramount, even ParAMOUR would be better), and offering the basest car with a FOUR cylinder turbo on the base car (incredibly moronic!), it was very good car and a CREDIBLE Mercedes S-Class/Lexus LS400 alternative. While I cannot know if the novel aluminum body was worth the cost (very expensive and complex to build), the bragging rights were legit--a LARGE car that was lighter, but had good body rigidity. No surprise, the interior was not the best, but the gap with the big boys was as close as GM has done in the luxury sphere.Mary Barra decided that profits today and tomorrow were more important than gambling on profits in 2025 and later. Having sunk a TON of money, and even done a mid-cycle enhancement, complete with the new Blackwing engine (which copied BMW with the twin turbos nestled in the "V"!), in fall 2018 GM announced it was discontinuing the car, and closing the assembly plant it was built in. (And so you know, building different platforms on the same line is very challenging and considerably less efficient in terms of capital and labor costs than the same platform, or better yet, the same model).So now, GM is anticipating that, as the car market "goes electric" (if you can call it that--more like the Federal Government and EU and even China PUSHING electric cars), they can make electric Cadillacs that are "prestige". The Cadillac Celestique is the opening salvo--$340,000. We will see how it works out.
Lynn Joiner Lynn JoinerJust put 2,000 miles on a Chevy Malibu rental from Budget, touring around AZ, UT, CO for a month. Ran fine, no problems at all, little 1.7L 4-cylinder just sipped fuel, and the trunk held our large suitcases easily. Yeah, I hated looking up at all the huge FWD trucks blowing by, but the Malibu easily kept up on the 80 mph Interstate in Utah. I expect a new one would be about a third the cost of the big guys. It won't tow your horse trailer, but it'll get you to the store. Why kill it?
Lynn Joiner Just put 2,000 miles on a Chevy Malibu rental from Budget, touring around AZ, UT, CO for a month. Ran fine, no problems at all, little 1.7L 4-cylinder just sipped fuel, and the trunk held our large suitcases easily. Yeah, I hated looking up at all the huge FWD trucks blowing by, but the Malibu easily kept up on the 80 mph Interstate in Utah. I expect a new one would be about a third the cost of the big guys. It won't tow your horse trailer, but it'll get you to the store. Why kill it?