Toyota Prius Hybrid Inverter/IPM Defect

 

In early 2018 Fazio | Micheletti LLP filed a nationwide class action in Los Angeles County Superior Court against Toyota for fraudulently concealing the nature and scope of a defect in more than three-quarters of a million through 2014 model-year Prius and 2012 through 2014 model-year Prius hybrid vehicles -- which even Toyota admitted posed a serious risk of injury and death -- by falsely representing to government regulatory agencies that the defect would be eliminated by simply updating the onboard software that controls the hybrid inverters Toyota installed in those vehicles. The decision to update the software did, however, save Toyota more than $2 billion by avoiding the expense of replacing the hybrid inverters -- which cost an average of $3,000 each to replace -- in more than 800,000 vehicles.

When a similar class action was filed by Los Angeles-based Miller Barondess LLP a week after the state-court action had been filed, the state-court judge decided to abate (i.e., put it on hold) until after the federal litigation was resolved. Unwilling to sit on the sidelines while the litigation proceeded in federal court, Fazio | Micheletti dismissed the state-court action and filed a complaint on behalf of a nationwide class in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The cases were consolidated for the purpose of trying them together before a jury; the federal court appointed Fazio | Micheletti and Miller Barondess as interim co-lead counsel for the proposed nationwide class of Prius drivers; and a complaint that merges the claims alleged in both cases was filed in the federal action. (A copy of the operative complaint can be found here.)

Several weeks later, Toyota admitted that the defect was still causing Priuses to suddenly decelerate or stall while being driven and, in October 2018, Toyota announced it was conducting a second safety recall of the same 800,000 Prius and Prius hybrids it had recalled several years earlier. Rather than replacing the defective components with non-defective ones, however, Toyota argued that the problem was actually caused by the software it had installed during the previous recalls and, therefore, that it could be solved by another software update.

 

There were two basic problems with Toyota's position on the matter.

 

First, the safety risk was not created by software; it was caused by defective hardware -- namely, the Intelligent Power Module (IPM) that is part of the hybrid inverter generated too much voltage -- so the safety defect cannot be eliminated by modifying the software.

 

Second, although Toyota asserted that the modified software could reduce the severity of the safety risk, Toyota limited the recall to the same vehicles it had recalled previously, but did not include any of the Prius and Prius hybrids that were manufactured after the initial safety recall was announced in February 2014 -- even though Toyota equipped those vehicles with exactly the same software it had installed in the recalled vehicles.

Plaintiffs demanded answers to the questions this issue raised, and they received them a few months later -- only not in response to the formal discovery Plaintiffs had propounded. Instead, Toyota announced that it will conduct yet another safety recall n August 2020, which will include each of the later model-year vehicles that Toyota manufactured since January 2014. Specifically, on June 24, 2020, Toyota issued a press release in which it stated that it "is conducting a safety recall involving certain 2013-2015 Model Year Prius and 2014 – 2017 Model Year Prius v in the United States.  Approximately 267,000 vehicles are involved in this recall."

 

Meanwhile, Toyota recently filed a motion by which it seeks to prevent Plaintiffs from presenting their claims to a jury. According to Toyota, the contracts signed by two of the Plaintiffs who propose to serve as the representatives of a class of current and former Prius drivers contain arbitration provisions that preclude them from participating in a class action and from having a jury decide any of their claims. Plaintiffs will be opposing Toyota's motion to compel arbitration in the near future.

Plaintiffs are also preparing a motion seeking certification of the proposed class of current and former Prius drivers, which will be filed in late September. Assuming Plaintiffs defeat Toyota's efforts to avoid being held accountable for its conduct, the case will proceed to a trial before a jury in which Plaintiffs will seek, among other things, an order notifying the class of the true nature and scope of the IPM defect and requiring Toyota to provide a cost-free replacement of the defective hybrid inverters in all class vehicles.

 

Alternatively, Plaintiffs will seek an award of compensatory damages in amounts equal to the cost of replacing the defective inverters, as well as an award of punitive damages in an amount sufficient to deter Toyota from engaging in similar conduct in the future. To determine the sufficiency of the punitive-damage award, Plaintiffs will ask the Court to consider (a) that Toyota had been charged with federal crimes for misrepresenting and concealing material facts pertaining to the existence of a safety defect in 22 million Toyota- and Lexus-brand vehicles, which created the risk of suddenly and unexpectedly acceleration and the injury and/or death of persons in and around the vehicle when the defect became manifest; (b) that Toyota avoided responsibility for those crimes by entering into a deferred-prosecution agreement with the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York; and (c) that Toyota was subject to that agreement at the time Toyota was engaging in the active concealment of the nature and scope of the IPM defect and what was actually necessary to eliminate it.

 

The deferred-prosecution agreement required Toyota to refrain from misleading, misrepresenting, and concealing material facts pertaining to safety defects in its products for four years after the execution of the agreement. In exchange, the U.S. Attorney agreed to refrain from prosecuting Toyota for the crimes it committed while fraudulently concealing a defect in millions of Toyota- and Lexus-brand vehicles, which could cause them to suddenly and unexpectedly accelerate, and allegedly resulted in numerous deaths.

 

Plaintiffs allege that this is precisely the same type of conduct that led to the present case. As it did in connection with the sudden-acceleration defect, Toyota has fraudulently concealed and repeatedly misled state and federal regulators in connection with the IPM defect as a means of avoiding the multi-billion-dollar cost of eliminating it.

We continue to investigate complaints from consumers who have experienced a problem as a result of the IPM defect. If you own a 2010 through 2015 model-year Prius hybrid and/or a 2012 through 2017 model-year Prius hybrid, please contact us. You can reach us by submitting the form on our Contact page or by sending us an email message that includes a brief description of your experience with your vehicle and the best way we can reach you. 

Thank you.

Fazio | Micheletti LLP is not affiliated with the companies depicted, described, or identified on this website.

SuperLawyers

© 2020 by Fazio | Micheletti LLP

 
Have a problem? Contact us via our Contact form or by email or phoneInitial consultations are free of charge.

 

This website is operated by Fazio | Micheletti LLP (“FM”). By using the website, you agree to be bound by the terms of use set forth on this page (“Terms”); please read them carefully. FM reserves the right to modify these Terms at any time by posting modified terms of use on this website, which you will be presumed to have read if you continue to use the website.

 

Jurisdictions in which FM Attorneys are Licensed to Practice: FM attorneys are licensed to practice law in state and federal courts throughout California.  Where a matter requires the admission of an FM attorney in a state other than California, FM attorneys will affiliate with an attorney licensed to practice in that state and seek admission pro hac vice

 

The information contained on this website constitutes a "communication," as that term is used in California Rule of Professional Conduct 7.1, to the extent that it is a message or offer made by or on behalf of a member of the California State Bar regarding a member or a law firm's availability for professional employment that is directed to any former, present, or prospective client. See the Disclaimer page of this website for information relating to this issue and other issues pertaining to communications set forth on this website.

  • Twitter
  • Facebook