Dusevic & Garcha has filed the within proposed consumer product liability multi-jurisdictional class proceeding involves certain Affected Class Vehicles, which include model year 1999 to 2016 Ford Super Duty F-Series trucks, as defined below, designed, manufactured, assembled, tested, marketed, advertised, distributed, supplied, sold and/or leased by the Defendants, FORD MOTOR COMPANY (“FORD US”) and FORD MOTOR COMPANY OF CANADA, LIMITED/FORD DU CANADA LIMITEE (“FORD CANADA”), in Canada, including the Province of British Columbia, that contain insufficient and weak roof structures or components that are highly susceptible to collapse in a rollover accident. Specifically, the Affected Class Vehicles suffer from an inherent design defect wherein the truck cab roof construction lacks the structural integrity or frame strength to support the weight of the vehicle in a rollover accident which crushes the roof down to the level of the vehicle’s body (“Roof Crush Defect”) and poses an imminent, substantial and/or grave risk of harm, injury and/or death to vehicle occupants.

A vehicle’s body shell is the structure that surrounds the occupants of the vehicle, including the doors, roof, pillars, roof rails, windshield header, rear header and rear windows.

The weakness in the Affected Class Vehicles’ roof structures or components is the result of the Defendants, FORD US and FORD CANADA, pursuit to reduce costs at the expense of vehicle occupant safety. From the time the Defendants, FORD US and/or FORD CANADA, first designed, developed and manufactured the Affected Class Vehicles and continuing through production of the Affected Class Vehicles, the Defendants, FORD US and/or FORD CANADA, continued to reduce the strength of the Affected Class Vehicles’ roof structures or components for the sake of maximizing profits.

The Affected Class Vehicles include the F-250, F-350, F-450 and F-550 Super Duty trucks which contain the PHN-131 design platform that is available in three cab configurations: (1) two-door Regular Cab; (2) four-door Super Cab; and (3) four-door Super Crew Cab. The Super Cab design consists of two doors on each side that latch to one another when closed, sometimes referred to as “clam-shell doors”, as detailed below.

The Defendants, FORD US and/or FORD CANADA, downgaged and reduced the strength of various roof structural components found in the Affected Class Vehicles, without conducting any physical roof crush test to determine whether such changes would impact vehicle occupant safety. Rather, the Defendants, FORD US and/or FORD CANADA, were solely focused on extracting additional profits from the Affected Class Vehicles. The Defendants’, FORD US and/or FORD CANADA, efforts to reduce their cost to manufacture and produce an Affected Class Vehicle by approximately $28 USD created the Roof Crush Defect, which has resulted in harm, injury and/or death to vehicle occupants.

The existence of the Roof Crush Defect was well known to the Defendants, FORD US and/or FORD CANADA, for years through, inter alia, pre-production testing, design failure mode analysis, internal investigations and studies, warranty claims, parts orders, consumer reports and/or settling products liability, personal injury and/or wrongful death accident lawsuits with secrecy clauses that hid the dangerous nature of the Roof Crush Defect. In or about 2005, the Defendants, FORD US and/or FORD CANADA, designed a passenger cab roof for their Super Duty F-Series trucks to withstand more weight and provide significantly increased roof crush resistence, however, they did not implement the design into their manufacturing process until 2017 but rather continued to sell and/or lease the Affected Class Vehicles with the Roof Crush Defect.

The Defendants, FORD US and/or FORD CANADA, continue to deny the existence of the Roof Crush Defect and have failed to warn, or disclose to, owners and/or lessees of the Affected Class Vehicles that their trucks pose a substantial and real danger of harm, injury and/or death in the event of a rollover accident as a result of the Roof Crush Defect. Nor have, the Defendants, FORD US and/or FORD CANADA, issued a recall, offered any repair for the Roof Crush Defect or offered owners and/or lessees of the Affected Class Vehicles reimbursement for out-of-pocket expenses, loss of use, and loss of value as a result of the Roof Crush Defect. Rather, the Defendants, FORD US and/or FORD CANADA, have actively concealed the Roof Crush Defect from owners and/or lessees of the Affected Class Vehicles.

The Defendants’, FORD US and/or FORD CANADA, marketing of their Super Duty F-Series trucks as safe, dependable and reliable is pervasive across North America as characterized by their longstanding ubiquitous slogan: “Built Ford Tough”.

No reasonable consumer expects to purchase a vehicle with a concealed defect that presents a substantial and real catastrophic danger to vehicle occupants. The Roof Crush Defect is material to the Plaintiffs and proposed class members because when they purchased and/or leased their Affected Class Vehicle they reasonably relied on the reasonable expectation that the Affected Class Vehicles would be free from defects and would protect them in the event of a rollover accident. Had proposed class members known of the Roof Crush Defect at the time of purchase and/or lease of the Affected Class Vehicles, they would not have purchased and/or leased the Affected Class Vehicles or would have paid substantially less for them.

The Defendants, FORD US and/or FORD CANADA, knowingly omitted, concealed and/or suppressed material facts regarding the Roof Crush Defect, and misrepresented the safety standard, quality, or grade of the Affected Class Vehicles, all at the time of purchase and/or lease or otherwise, which directly caused harm or loss to the Plaintiffs and proposed class members. As a direct result of the Defendants’, FORD US and/or FORD CANADA, unfair, deceptive and/or fraudulent business practices and wrongful conduct, the Plaintiffs and proposed class members have suffered ascertainable losses or damages, including, inter alia: (1) out-of-pocket expenses for repair of the Roof Crush Defect; (2) costs for future repairs; (3) sale of their vehicles at a loss; and/or (4) diminished value of their vehicles.

The Plaintiffs seek relief for all other owners and/or lessees of the Affected Class Vehicles with the Roof Crush Defect, including, inter alia, recovery of damages and/or repair under various provincial consumer protection legislation, breach of implied warranty or condition of merchantability, statutory and equitable claims and reimbursement of all expenses associated with the repair and/or replacement of the Affected Class Vehicles.