A Volkswagen exploding sunroof class-action lawsuit is hanging on after the automaker filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
Plaintiff Rosaura Deras filed the lawsuit on behalf of consumers who purchased or leased in California any of the following vehicles equipped with factory-installed sunroofs:
• 2005-2017 Volkswagen Jetta
• 2015-2017 Volkswagen Golf
• 2006-2015 Volkswagen GTI
• 2009-2010 Volkswagen CC
• 2007-2016 Volkswagen Eos
• 2006-2009 Volkswagen Rabbit
• 2012-2017 Volkswagen Passat
• 2004-2006 Volkswagen Touareg
• 2011-2017 Volkswagen Touareg
• 2008 Volkswagen R32
• 2009-2017 Volkswagen Tiguan
According to Deras, she leased a 2013 Volkswagen Jetta in June 2013 and purchased the vehicle on June 3, 2016, at the end of her lease term.
She claims that in 2017 while driving on the freeway, a loud “BOOM” like a gunshot went off in the car, followed by a hail of glass falling on her head and the interior of the Volkswagen. She said she saw a large hole in the center of her sunroof with the edges of the glass pointing upward, indicating the glass wasn't broken from outside the vehicle.
The plaintiff said VW has concealed defects in the sunroofs because since Dec. 14, 2009, 57 “owners and lessees of Class Vehicles have reported an incident of their sunroof shattering” to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).
According to the plaintiff, VW further knew of the defect through its internal tracking systems and because the automaker issued a recall for its 2013--2015 Beetle.
The recall was issued “relating to the shattering of sunroofs,” but “it has done nothing regarding the far more predominant problem relating to all regular and panoramic sunroof shattering that affects potentially hundreds of thousands or more VW vehicles.”
Volkswagen moved to dismiss the exploding sunroof class-action lawsuit, starting with implied warranty claims on the grounds they are barred by the four-year statute of limitations.
The plaintiff does not dispute that she did not file the lawsuit within four years of the date on which she leased the vehicle. However, she argues that her claim was timely because her June 2016 purchase re-started the statute of limitations clock. The judge agreed.