Dusevic & Garcha has filed the within proposed automotive defect multi-jurisdictional class proceeding which involves allegations certain model and model year Honda vehicles painted with a factory-applied white exterior paint, engineered, designed, developed, manufactured, assembled, tested, marketed, distributed, supplied, leased and/or sold by the Defendants, HONDA MOTOR COMPANY, LTD. ("HMC"), HONDA CANADA INC. ("HCI"), and HONDA DEVELOPMENT & MANUFACTURING OF AMERICA, LLC ("HDMA"), in Canada, including the Province of British Columbia. In particular, the Affected Class Vehicles all suffer from a paint defect that causes the vehicles’ exterior paint to prematurely and inevitably fail, peel, delaminate, degrade, bubble, and/or flake.

“Affected Class Vehicles” include, but are not limited to, the following Honda-branded vehicles ranging from model year 2013 to the present painted with a factory-applied white exterior paint, in particular, having the corresponding paint and paint code referenced below, and whose limited and/or extended warranty coverage as to repairs of the Paint Defect having expired:

DEFENDANT MANUFACTURER/MODEL/PAINT & PAINT CODE

HDMA - Acura MDX - White Diamond Pearl (NH-603P)

HDMA - Honda Odyssey - White Diamond Pearl (NH-603P) or Tafetta White (NH-578))

HDMA - Honda Pilot - White Diamond Pearl (NH-603P) or Tafetta White (NH-578)

HMC - Honda Fit - White Orchard Pearl or Bellanova White (NH-788P)

HMC - Honda HR-V - White Orchard Pearl or Bellanova White (NH-788P)

The Paint Defect existed in latent form when the Defendants, HMC, HCI and/or HDMA, manufactured the Affected Class Vehicles and when the Plaintiff and putative class members purchased and/or leased the Affected Class Vehicles; however, the Paint Defect has manifested, and will invariably manifest itself, during the reasonably expected life of the Affected Class Vehicles causing premature or early paint failure, peeling, delamination, degradation, bubbling, and/or flaking.

The Paint Defect arises from a latent defect in the white paint itself; a defect in the factory application process used to apply the primer layers and/or the white paint to the exterior body of the Affected Class Vehicles; and/or a defect in the Defendants’, HCI’s, HMC’s and/or HDMA’s, factory automated painting/coating-line system.

As detailed below, at all relevant times (late 2012 to the present based on the time the Defendants, HMC, HCI and/or HDMA, began selling and/or leasing the Affected Class Vehicles), the Defendants, HMC, HCI and/or HDMA, have been fully aware of the importance consumers place on the exterior appearance of vehicles. Further, at all relevant times, the Defendants, HMC, HCI and/or HDMA, have also been aware of the Paint Defect based on, inter alia, internal testing, substantially similar paint defect problems with other Honda-branded vehicles, countless consumer complaints, and at least one other substantially similar class proceeding involving an exterior paint defect of Honda-branded vehicles.

The Defendants, HMC, HCI and/or HDMA, have exclusive knowledge of, and have been in exclusive possession of, facts and/or information pertaining to the Paint Defect, which were material to the Plaintiff and putative class members, who could not have reasonably known of the Paint Defect. Under the circumstances, the Defendants, HMC, HCI and/or HDMA, had an affirmative duty to disclose the latent Paint Defect at the point of sale and/or lease of the Affected Class Vehicles to putative class members and consumers.

Despite that knowledge and duty, the Defendants, HMC, HCI and/or HDMA, have repeatedly failed to disclose and actively concealed the Paint Defect from putative class members and consumers, and continued to market and represent the Affected Class Vehicles as stylish, luxurious, high-quality, high-value and value-retaining vehicles which, as a result of the Paint Defect, they are not.

In 2019, faced with an avalanche of consumer complaints about the Paint Defect the Defendants, HMC, HCI and/or HDMA, finally acknowledged the Paint Defect and implemented various Technical Service Bulletins (“TSBs”) extending the new vehicle  limited warranty arbitrarily, and without providing a set criteria, only to a subset of, but not all, Affected Class Vehicles to cover repairs of the Paint Defect. The Defendants, HMC, HCI and/or HDMA, subsequently updated the TSBs to minimize the subset of the Affected Class Vehicles entitled to the extended warranties by arbitrarily and/or deceptively restricting or altering the nature of the warranty claim.

As detailed below, the Defendants’, HCI’s, HMC’s and/or HDMA’s, extended warranties failed to provide an adequate remedy or fix to putative class members because the extended warranties: (i) were provided without adequate notice to owners and/or lessees of the Affected Class Vehicles whose latent Paint Defect had manifested; (ii) were limited by way of updated TSBs to reduce the size of the subset of the Affected Class Vehicles entitled to the extended warranties by restricting or altering the nature of the warranty claims and the entitlements thereof; (iii) provided no relief to owners and/or lessees of Affected Class Vehicles whose vehicles were arbitrarily and without reason excluded from the subset entitled to the extended warranties; (iv) provided no relief to owners and/or lessees of Affected Class Vehicles whose Paint Defect had not yet visibly manifested; (v) were arbitrarily and improperly honored; and (vi) the paint repairs provided were inadequate, did not remediate or fix the Paint Defect, and did not restore the Affected Class Vehicles to their bargained-for value. Moreover, with the current expiration of its inadequate warranty remedies, the Defendants, HMC, HCI and/or HDMA, have refused, and continue to refuse, to provide paint repairs or any other meaningful remedy or fix to putative class members who have suffered loss, expense or damage as a result of the Paint Defect.

Vehicle manufacturers paint vehicles for two essential purposes: (i) to enhance aesthetics (i.e., color, gloss, and appearance); and (ii) to provide necessary functionality (i.e., chemical and corrosion-resistance to protect the body of the vehicle). If any of these two purposes is compromised, then the value of the vehicle is greatly diminished and an integral component of the vehicle will likely fail, causing further damage in the form of rust and/or corrosion.

The condition of the paint on the body of a vehicle is widely recognized in the automotive industry as a factor affecting the value of and a potential consumer’s appeal to the vehicle. This is because the appearance (color, gloss, and texture) of the surface of the vehicle significantly affects a consumer’s perception of product quality. Additionally, consumer expectations for the aesthetic and functional attributes given to the exterior of vehicles by paint coatings continue to increase as vehicle manufacturers compete to provide surfaces that offer enhanced surface characteristics.

The Paint Defect has the effect of altering the visual and aesthetic appeal, and functionality of the paint coating, of the Affected Class Vehicles, thus it decreases the value of the Affected Class Vehicles, forcing owners and/or lessees of the Affected Class Vehicles to either live with the peeling and degradation problems caused by the Paint Defect or spend significant money to have the Affected Class Vehicles repainted and/or repaired. Even then, repainting an impacted exterior body panel of the vehicle does not cure or remedy the Paint Defect as the remaining parts of the Affected Class Vehicles still suffer from the Paint Defect in its latent form that will invariably manifest. Moreover, repainting the Affected Class Vehicles results in a cosmetic defect that permanently decreases the value of the Affected Class Vehicles.

As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’, HMC’s, HCI’s and/or HDMA’s, deceit regarding, and failure to disclose, the Paint 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 Paint Defect significantly diminishes the value of the Affected Class Vehicles; (iii) have Affected Class Vehicles that suffer from premature unsightly and aesthetically displeasing paint failures that have the added effect of compromising the effectiveness and functionality of the paint coatings; (iv) have Affected Class Vehicles that have significantly reduced re-sale value; and (v) must expend significant money to have their Affected Class Vehicles repainted and/or repaired.

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 Paint 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’, HMC’s, HCI’s and/or HDMA’s, unlawful conduct.

In engineering, designing, developing, manufacturing, assembling, testing, marketing, distributing, suppling, leasing and/or selling the Affected Class Vehicles, the Defendants, HMC, HCI and/or HDMA, 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 had the Defendants, HCI, HMC and/or HDMA, made full and complete disclosure of the Paint Defect, or would have paid a lesser price. 

The Plaintiff and putative class members expected that the Defendants, HMC, HCI and/or HMA, would disclose, and not actively conceal, material facts about the existence of any defect that will result in expensive and non-ordinary repairs. The Defendants, HMC, HCI and/or HDMA, failed to do so.

The Plaintiff seeks relief for all other current and/or former owners and/or lessees of the Affected Class Vehicles with the Paint Defect, including, inter alia, recovery of damages, repair under provincial consumer protection legislation, breach of express warranty, and/or reimbursement of all expenses associated with the repairs of the Paint Defect in the Affected Class Vehicles.