Dusevic & Garcha has filed the within proposed product liability multi-jurisdictional class proceeding involves certain model year Ford Escape and Lincoln Corsair Grand Touring plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (“PHEV”), defined below as “Affected Class Vehicles”, engineered, designed, manufactured, assembled, tested, marketed, distributed, supplied leased and/or sold 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, equipped with a defective high-voltage lithium-ion battery that can cause spontaneous vehicle fires and explosions (“Spontaneous Fire Risk”) during operation or while parked (“Battery Defect”). The Battery Defect poses a real, substantial and imminent risk of harm or injury to vehicle occupants, to people and property nearby and catastrophic damage to the Affected Class Vehicles themselves.

In an electric vehicle (“EV”), the electric battery is the most important component because it stores the chemical energy and converts it to electricity to power the motor and propel the vehicle. The battery also powers the vehicle’s electrical systems when it is not in operation, such as the central locking system, the alarm, and other security features. The battery also powers the vehicle’s onboard computer and diagnostic systems.

The amount of electrical energy a battery can store is referred to as “capacity”, which is measured in kilowatt hours (“kWh”). The battery's design influences how fast it can be recharged, and its size and capacity impacts how far the vehicle can travel on a single charge (called “range”).

Most batteries in EVs are lithium-ion, which allows for higher energy density, meaning that the lithium-ion battery can store a lot of energy in a small mass. Lithium-ion batteries also have long cycle life, meaning that the battery can perform through numerous charges and discharge cycles before it no longer holds a charge.

Lithium-ion batteries, however, have disadvantages. EV manufacturers are aware that lithium-ion batteries have a long history of fire issues. As lithium-ion batteries can store significant amounts of energy, they can overheat when charged to full or nearly full capacity, putting the battery at risk of exploding or catching fire. This is called “thermal runaway”: when the battery's temperature rapidly and uncontrollably rises, leading to a fire. Overheating can result from short circuiting in a battery cell within the lithium-ion battery’s module. External short circuiting occurs when there is unintended direct contact between the positive and negative terminals, thereby allowing energy to flow unimpeded, while internal short circuiting can occur within a single cell due to a manufacturing defect.

The Battery Defect in the Affected Class Vehicles causes an internal short circuit in the lithium-ion battery cell, resulting in a sudden and complete loss of motive power while in operation and further, increases the risk of a fire, or thermal event, even when the vehicle is parked and in the off position.

“Affected Class Vehicles” refers to the following model year Ford 2.5 litre (“2.5L”) PHEV vehicles engineered, designed, manufactured, assembled, tested, marketed, advertised, distributed, supplied, sold and/or leased by the Defendants, FORD US and/or FORD CANADA, in Canada, including the Province of British Columbia, equipped with a defective lithium-ion battery:

FORD MODEL

Escape (2020-2024)

Lincoln Corsair Grand Touring (2021-2024)

The Defendants, FORD US and FORD CANADA, have publicly identified seven high-voltage battery failures and one vehicle fire suspected to arise from the Battery Defect. The high-voltage battery manufacturer, Samsung SDI Co., Ltd. (“Samsung”), also supplied these defective batteries to other vehicle manufacturers, Stellantis Chrysler and Volkswagen AG, for use in nearly 160,000 other vehicles, and, to date, those vehicle manufacturers have reported at least twenty-four vehicle fires arising from their high-voltage lithium-ion battery packs, including some occurring in Stellantis Chrysler vehicles that had already received a purported fix for the fire risk defect. Recently, after the Defendants, FORD US and/or Ford Canada, Stellantis Chrysler, and Volkswagen AG recalled their vehicles, Samsung recalled more than 180,000 of these high-voltage battery packs deemed at risk of failure and sudden fire.

The Battery Defect exposes putative class members to an unreasonable risk of accident, injury, death and/or property damage if their vehicle’s high-voltage lithium-ion battery—located under the front seats—fails or catches fire while in operation or, perhaps more commonly, spontaneously ignites while the vehicle is parked at the putative class member’s home, on a public street, or in a public parking lot. The Spontaneous Fire Risk arising from the Battery Defect also exposes passengers, other drivers on the road, owners of other cars parked near the Affected Class Vehicles, and other bystanders to an unreasonable risk of accident, injury, death, and/or property damage.

The Defendants, FORD US and FORD Canada, have no remedy yet for the Battery Defect but claim a software update for the batteries is forthcoming. However, such software update remedies have recently proved ineffective at eliminating fires, as seen in the Jeep Wrangler and Cherokee hybrid-electric vehicles, manufactured by Stellantis Chrysler, outfitted with the same Samsung-manufactured high-voltage lithium-ion batteries, and in the Stellantis Chrysler Pacifica hybrid-electric vehicles equipped with defective LG Energy Solution, Ltd. high-voltage lithium-ion batteries. In each case, fires continued to occur in vehicles that received the software update, necessitating re-recall and a new fix.

While they await this purported fix, the Defendants, FORD US and FORD Canada, direct the Plaintiff and putative class members to stop charging their Affected Class Vehicles, effectively denying them use of the prominent hybrid-electric feature for which they paid a premium. Likewise, the Plaintiff and putative class members are forced to pay for gas while increasing their carbon footprint. A PHEV that cannot be operated in all-electric mode and is less efficient than its gas-powered equivalent is not fit for its ordinary purpose.

The Defendants, FORD US and FORD Canada, had all the knowledge they needed to anticipate, test for, and prevent the Spontaneous Fire Risk arising from the Battery Defect before the Affected Class Vehicles went to market. This knowledge came from, among other things, (i) industry and scientific studies on the fire risks of lithium-ion battery packs; industry insights on the appropriate specifications and control systems for lithium-ion batteries; (ii) rigorous pre-launch testing of the high-voltage battery and hybrid propulsion system that any responsible vehicle manufacturer would have conducted; and known fire issues arising in other vehicles with lithium-ion battery packs, including those equipped with the same Samsung batteries here and others used in the Defendants’, FORD US’s and FORD CANADA’s, own Fusion PHEVs. Despite this exclusive knowledge, the Defendants, FORD US and FORD CANADA, chose profits over safety and sold and/or leased the Affected Class Vehicles to the Plaintiff and putative class members without disclosing or rectifying the Spontaneous Fire Risk arising from the Battery Defect.

Owners and/or lessees of the Affected Class Vehicles have been injured in fact, incurred damages, and suffered ascertainable losses in money and property as a result of the Battery Defect. They paid thousands of dollars for a plug-in hybrid electric propulsion system that they cannot use and will continue to incur damages until the Battery Defect is fixed. Had the Plaintiff and putative class members known of the Battery Defect, they would not have purchased and/or leased those vehicles, paid substantially less for them or purchased non-hybrid versions of the vehicles, which are significantly less expensive.

The Defendants’, FORD US’s and/or FORD CANADA’s, marketing of their vehicles 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 and/or property as a result of fire. The Battery Defect, and resulting Spontaneous Fire Risk, is material to the Plaintiff and putative 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 the risk of fire.

The Defendants, FORD US and/or FORD CANADA, knowingly omitted, concealed and/or  suppressed material facts regarding the Battery Defect, and resulting Spontaneous Fire  Risk, 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 Plaintiff and putative class members. As a direct result of the Defendants’, FORD US’s and/or FORD CANADA’s, unfair, deceptive and/or fraudulent business practices and wrongful conduct, the Plaintiff and putative class members have suffered ascertainable losses or damages, including, inter alia: (i) out-of-pocket expenses for repair of the Battery Defect; (ii) costs for future repairs; (iii) damage to property; (iv) sale of their vehicles at a loss; and/or (v) diminished value of their vehicles.

The Defendants, FORD US and FORD CANADA, have failed to provide a remedy for the Battery Defect, and resulting Spontaneous Fire Risk, and further, refused to provide putative class members with loaner vehicles or offer to reimburse owners and/or lessees of the Affected Class Vehicles for car payments, towing charges, rental vehicles, property damage, time off work, loss of use, and other miscellaneous costs while they wait for the Defendants, FORD US and FORD CANADA, to find a fix or remedy for the Battery  Defect, and resulting Spontaneous Fire Risk.

The Plaintiff seeks relief for all other owners and/or lessees of the Affected Class Vehicles with the Battery Defect, and resulting Spontaneous Fire Risk, including, inter alia, recovery of damages and/or repair under various provincial consumer protection legislation, breach of express warranty, 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 defective high-voltage lithium-ion battery equipped in the  Affected Class Vehicles and/or buy back of the Affected Class Vehicles.