The within proposed automotive defect multi-jurisdictional class proceeding involves 2019–2024 Jaguar I-PACE model vehicles (the “Affected Class Vehicles”) that were engineered, designed, developed, manufactured, assembled, tested, marketed, distributed, supplied, leased, and/or sold in Canada, including the Province of British Columbia, by the Defendants, Jaguar Land Rover Automotive PLC (“JLR PLC”) and/or Jaguar Land Rover Canada ULC (“JLR ULC”), and are equipped with a defective lithium-ion high-voltage traction battery that is prone to overheating and catastrophic failure. In particular, the high-voltage battery contains manufacturing defects in the internal construction of its module cells, including folded and/or bent anode tabs, that cause internal short circuiting by allowing impermissible contact with the cathode, thereby creating a serious and unreasonable risk of vehicle fire and/or explosion (the “Battery Defect”).

The Battery Defect is latent and occurs without adequate warning or indication to drivers. When manifested, the Battery Defect can cause, inter alia, inability to start or operate the vehicle, sudden loss of motive power, and/or vehicle fire or explosion, including while the vehicle is parked or not in operation, thereby posing a real, substantial, and imminent risk of harm to vehicle occupants, to persons and property in the vicinity, and/or catastrophic damage to the Affected Class Vehicles themselves.

All high-voltage batteries containing the Battery Defect equipped in the Affected Class Vehicles were manufactured and/or supplied by LG Energy Solution, Ltd. (“LG Energy Solution”).

At all material times to the cause of action herein, the Defendants knew, or ought to have known, about the Battery Defect as evidenced by, inter alia: (i) consumer complaints lodged with governmental vehicle safety regulators in the United States and Canada, including the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (“NHTSA”) and Transport Canada, as well as reports posted elsewhere online; (ii) numerous reports of vehicle fires across the United States and Canada (iii) warranty claims, part sales, and direct consumer complaints submitted to the Defendants; (iv) the Defendants’ own pre-sale durability testing and internal evaluation of the Affected Class Vehicles; and (v) numerous recalls and/or safety advisories issued to owners and/or lessees, instructing them to park their vehicles outdoors and away from structures due to the fire and explosion risk posed by the Battery Defect.

The Defendants possessed exclusive knowledge of, and exclusive access to, material facts and information concerning the Battery Defect, which information was not known, and could not reasonably have been known, by the Plaintiff or putative class members. In the circumstances, the Defendants had an affirmative duty to disclose the Battery Defect at the point of sale and/or lease of the Affected Class Vehicles.

Despite that knowledge and duty, the Defendants have repeatedly failed to disclose and actively concealed the Battery Defect from the Plaintiff and putative class members, and continued to market and represent the Affected Class Vehicles as safe, reliable and durable vehicles, when in fact, due to the Battery Defect, they were not.

The Defendants have implemented a series of purported remedies, consisting primarily of software updates to the Battery Energy Control Module (“BECM”), which do not remedy or fix the Battery Defect. Instead, these updates merely delay or manage the manifestation of the Battery Defect by limiting battery performance or operating parameters, without remedying or fixing the underlying manufacturing and safety-related hazards associated with the Battery Defect.

The only effective remedy for the Battery Defect is the replacement of the Affected Class Vehicles’ high-voltage battery with a non-defective battery that does not suffer from the Battery Defect, or, in the alternative, the repurchase or buyback of the Affected Class Vehicles.

As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ unfair, misleading, deceptive, and/or fraudulent business practices in failing to disclose the Battery Defect, the Plaintiff and putative class members: (i) overpaid for the Affected Class Vehicles, either through a higher purchase price and/or lease payments; (ii) overpaid for the Affected Class Vehicles as the Battery Defect significantly diminishes the value of the Affected Class Vehicles; (iii) own and/or lease Affected Class Vehicles that are unsafe, unreliable and dangerous in their operation and/or storage; (iv) have experienced significant loss of resale value; (v) have incurred or will incur substantial out-of-pocket costs for repairs; and/or (vi) have suffered or risk total loss of their vehicles.

The Plaintiff and putative class members have purchased and/or leased Affected Class Vehicles that they would not have otherwise purchased and/or leased, or would have paid less for, had they known of the Battery Defect at the point of sale and/or lease. The Plaintiff and putative class members have consequently suffered ascertainable losses and actual damages as a result of the Defendants’ unlawful conduct.

In engineering, designing, developing, manufacturing, assembling, testing, marketing, distributing, supplying, leasing and/or selling the Affected Class Vehicles, the Defendants have engaged in unfair, deceptive, and/or misleading consumer practices, and further have breached their express warranties.

No reasonable consumer would have purchased and/or leased an Affected Class Vehicle, or would have paid the price charged, had the Defendants made full and complete disclosure of the Battery Defect. 

The Plaintiff and putative class members reasonably expected that the Defendants would disclose, and not actively conceal, material facts concerning any defect that would result in expensive and non-ordinary repairs or expose them to a real, substantial, and imminent risk of harm, injury, or death. The Defendants failed to do so.

The Plaintiff seeks relief on behalf of all owners and lessees of the Affected Class Vehicles affected by the Battery Defect, including, inter alia, damages, recovery for total loss, repair and/or buyback remedies under applicable provincial consumer protection legislation, breach of express and implied warranties, and reimbursement of all expenses associated with the repair, replacement, loss, diminished value, or loss of use of the Affected Class Vehicles.