BMW Differential Mount and Sub-frame Separation Lawsuit

I have deleted the letter, because I dont want to get in trouble paraphrasing it wrong. The following is the actual letter sent to me. Please download it and read it over.

We have to get everything together.

I would also suggest that when you contact Ms. Williams about this case, you list the following informaiton:

Re: BMW Differential Mount and Sub-frame Separation CL#97-21323

From there, she will send you a form to fill out concerning this issue that will probably ask for Name, Address, Phone Number, Make, Model, VIN, Engine code, etc.

This is now the real deal, and the state of Alabama has been very very hard on BMW in class action suits before. Might want to do a google on BMW and class action lawsuits.

Mods... Please sticky this post!

WOW I wonder if this thread will get bumped soon???????????????...

This is potentially good news. If an attorney is willing to take this case on a Pro Bono basis (he only gets paid, if BMW pays) and his fees aren't taken out of the class action they are above and beyond the class action, this is really good news.

For those you who have already paid money out of your pocket to fix your cars, this is a geat way to re-Coupe (get it ) your costs if the case is won.

Just the simple act of a few peope jumping on board and a case getting started, coupled with documented cases where BMWNA has already repaired some vehicles, may be enough for BMW to do a recall.

Don't just read this and not do anything. Send the attorney your info and isssues. The cars (I bais to the Mcoupe) are destoned to be classics, but they can't be if they fall apart at 80K miles.

For those of you not farmiliar with the issue, check out this link:

http://www.thelargeglass.com/bmw/subframe/

Check this link which documents the worst case that I think is known:

http://bimmer.roadfly.com/bmw/forums...5459105-1.html

Something should be done if this problem is cause by a flaw in the design and not by people modifiying and tracking the cars.

Just my 2 cents on this one.

Well, no attorney will ever do anything for free. This is a boat load of work. But usually the settlement pays the attorney's fees. Just FYI. That means we pay nothing, but its not Pro bono.

The case BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore, which is published in
Mondaq Business Briefing, and is said in the article to be potentially
one of the most significant cases in recent years for the insurance
industry although BMW had nothing to do with insurance. The Supreme
Court - for the first time ever - found that a punitive damages award
was so excessive as to violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The Case of The $2 Million Paint Job

The case arose out of BMW's sale of a new BMW 535i to Dr. Ira Gore
without disclosing that it had refinished some of the surfaces of the
car at its vehicle preparation center before shipping the car to the
dealer. In not disclosing the refinishing, BMW followed its standard
disclosure policy, which provided that repairs costing less than 3% of
the vehicle's suggested retail price would be considered insufficiently
material to necessitate disclosure. BMW had selected the 3% threshold in
1983 after reviewing the various state disclosure statutes then in
existence and concluding that a 3% trigger comported with the strictest
of those statutes.

Dr. Gore happily drove his car for nine months without noticing anything
wrong with the finish. When he took the car to a detailer to make it
look "snazzier," however, the detailer detected signs of refinishing.
After the detailer referred him to a lawyer, Dr. Gore filed suit in
Alabama state court. Based on the testimony of Dr. Gore's "expert" (a
disgruntled former BMW dealer) that even perfect, factory-quality
refinishing diminishes the value of a car by 10% of its purchase price,
the jury awarded Dr. Gore $4,000 in compensatory damages. And because
Dr. Gore's counsel had identified approximately 1,000 other vehicles
that BMW had sold throughout the country without disclosure of
refinishing, he asked for, and the jury awarded, $4,000 per car in
punitive damages, for a total of $4,000,000.

On appeal, the Alabama Supreme Court ordered the punitive damages
reduced to $2 million, with no explanation as to how it arrived at that
particular figure. The remitted punitive award was still 500 times the
size of any possible injury to Dr. Gore. In early 1995, the Supreme
Court agreed to hear the case. Sixteen months later, the court struck
down the punitive damages award by a 5-4 vote.

The Supreme Court Decision

The Supreme Court began its analysis by making clear that "when (a
punitive damages) award can fairly be characterized as 'grossly
excessive' in relation to (the State's legitimate interests in
retribution and deterrence) . . . it enter(s) the zone of arbitrariness
that violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."

The Court next held that the State's legitimate interests end at its
borders: "(P)rinciples of state sovereignty and comity" embodied in the
Constitution dictate that "Alabama does not have the power . . . to
punish BMW for conduct that was lawful where it occurred and that had no
impact on Alabama or its residents. Nor may Alabama impose sanctions on
BMW in order to deter conduct that is lawful in other jurisdictions."
(Because Dr. Gore had introduced no evidence that BMW's 3% threshold was
unlawful elsewhere in the country and because BMW had submitted evidence
that its conduct, in fact, was lawful in many other states, the Court
did not decide "whether one State may properly attempt to change a
tortfeasor's unlawful conduct in another State."

Having concluded that the Alabama jury had no right to attempt to force
BMW to change its policy nationwide, the Supreme Court turned to
determining whether the $2 million award was excessive in relationship
to Alabama's legitimate interests in regulating BMW's conduct in
Alabama. The Court conceptualized the inquiry as involving a question of
foreseeability, stating: "Elementary notions of fairness enshrined in
our constitutional jurisprudence dictate that a person receive fair
notice not only of the conduct that will subject him to punishment but
also of the severity of the penalty that a State may impose." The Court
then identified three "guideposts" as being particularly useful for
evaluating whether a defendant could be said to have adequate notice of
the magnitude of the jury-imposed penalties that might be assessed
against it: (1) the degree of reprehensibility of the conduct; (2) the
ratio of punitive damages to the actual or potential harm to the
plaintiff; and (3) the civil penalties authorized or imposed for
comparable misconduct. Applying these three yardsticks, the Supreme
Court concluded that the $2 million punishment did not pass
constitutional muster.

The article in Mondaq says that the Court's opinion leaves many key
issues in punitive damages cases unresolved. Nevertheless, there can be
no doubt that BMW has dramatically changed the litigation landscape. The
article goes on with a review on the case. (Mondaq Business Briefing,
May 5, 2000)

No wonder they call Alabama Tort Hell!

Randy's gonna be rich!

Is this why u were asking how many Z3s are around?

Well, I just got the offcial word from the area rep. He says that after market parts caused the damage to my car, specifically urethane bushings on the sway bars and UUC tranny mount enforcers. He told the dealer that had my car been an M (its a 2.3), this wouldn't have happened. What utter non-sense!

So, I guess I will be contacting the attorney as well. I really hate to go this route, the whole family is BMW fans and have owned everything from 2002's and up. I am really disappointed that they are not stepping up to the plate and addressing the subframe issues.

Randy, I need help!!!!

I suggest you contact an attorney.. I hear there is one that is well versed on this problem. Give her a ring, maybe she can call the dealership for you? You never know. Document everything you do with the dealership from now on.

Originally Posted by Michael Rose

Well, I just got the offcial word from the area rep. He says that after market parts caused the damage to my car, specifically urethane bushings on the sway bars and UUC tranny mount enforcers. He told the dealer that had my car been an M (its a 2.3), this wouldn't have happened. What utter non-sense!

So, I guess I will be contacting the attorney as well. I really hate to go this route, the whole family is BMW fans and have owned everything from 2002's and up. I am really disappointed that they are not stepping up to the plate and addressing the subframe issues.

Randy, I need help!!!!

IMHO, the dealer fix is at best returning it to stock (where it will break again). BMW should be implementing a dual-ear kit combined with more metal in that area so that the fix is permanent.

More metal means more money. Not going to happen. Its sad really. And you know that its just plain silly.

Will this effect the whole USA or just each state that sues? I am in California

That is a very valid question. I suggest you contact the attorney researching this matter.

Originally Posted by Mpire

That is a very valid question. I suggest you contact the attorney researching this matter.

I contacted her since although I am Canadian my car is an original US vehicle. She can't see any reason that I would be excluded from this.

What about cars with salvage title ? any chance us getting some help also ?

Originally Posted by Mpire

That is a very valid question. I suggest you contact the attorney researching this matter.

I contact the attorney, she replied back with

Dear Mr. Marquiz:

Thank you for your letter of today's date. I will be sending you an information form in the next few days.

Sincerely,

Anna M. Williams


I hope they can force a recall and randy can get rich while the rest of us get a fix out of this if our rearends break. I wonder if supercharging would void the fix if this goes through.

The poiunt of this is to prove its a design flaw, not that you modified your car. If its proven as a design flaw, then everyone with that vehicle gets the settlement, not jus tthe ones that are under warranty, or are stock with never having tracked it.

I mean come on, BMW has a "Performance Center" delivery where you "track" the car AT the factory, would they try to use that as abuse too?

I got a questionnaire and fee contract from the lawyer.

Does the contract look OK to you guys? I don't speak legalese.

Well, I dont know much about attorneys or fees. But if it doesnt cost me anything no matter what, its cant be that bad of a deal. How much money will BMW spend fighting this you think?

Here are the forms to fill out and send to the lawfirm for those of you that are interested.

It won't hurt to try!!!

Randy give this to all of your customers

Hey guys I think she wants all of us damage or no damage to fill out these forms and sent it to her for her data base for future repairs.


Dear Mr. firedwg1:

Please complete the questionnaire so that I will have this information for my data base. The first objective is to get repairs made on the vehicles that have suffered damage, but quite necessarily, some agreement needs to be made to repair others in the same category as damage occurs, or to find a fix that will prevent future damage.

Thank you for response and the link. I am aware of the website and peruse it frequently to see the new cases being posted.

Sincerely,


Anna M. Williams



-----Original Message-----
From: Firedwg1@aol.com [mailto:Firedwg1@aol.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2005 4:18 PM
To: amwilliams004@direcway.com
Subject: Re: 1996-2002 BMW Z3 3.0I CL #97-21323



Anna:


I thought this link may help you. Their are a list of photos and cases posted by owners. My rear end has not broke yet so I guess cannot join the lawsuit until it does.



http://www.thelargeglass.com/bmw/subframe/

Hey everybody, I'm pretty new to the forum (GREAT forum by the way) and had a question in regards to the subrame issue. I've read about this problem in a few different forums (as I'm sure we all have) and for the most part I have understood that this is a problem with all of the Z3's and at least the 98-2000 M roadsters/coupes, but I've read in one place that the 01 and 02 M roadsters/coupes may not have this problem. Although everywhere else I've read it says it effects the '01s and '02s as well. The '01/'02s are on the same platform though right? So then it should/could effect them as well ultimately. That breaks my heart because I've been salivating over a red '01 roadster for the past few weeks and really want to buy it but now I don't know. Anyone with any feedback on this....I'd greatly appreciate it. Looks like I may not be test driving my soon to be M roadster this weekend...DARN IT!!! Or maybe I'll just say screw it and buy it anyway....the Z3's and M roadster/coupes are so nice maybe the possible problem is worth it. Thanks for letting me be so long winded....

Originally Posted by cindy23

Hey everybody, I'm pretty new to the forum (GREAT forum by the way) and had a question in regards to the subrame issue. I've read about this problem in a few different forums (as I'm sure we all have) and for the most part I have understood that this is a problem with all of the Z3's and at least the 98-2000 M roadsters/coupes, but I've read in one place that the 01 and 02 M roadsters/coupes may not have this problem. Although everywhere else I've read it says it effects the '01s and '02s as well. The '01/'02s are on the same platform though right? So then it should/could effect them as well ultimately. That breaks my heart because I've been salivating over a red '01 roadster for the past few weeks and really want to buy it but now I don't know. Anyone with any feedback on this....I'd greatly appreciate it. Looks like I may not be test driving my soon to be M roadster this weekend...DARN IT!!! Or maybe I'll just say screw it and buy it anyway....the Z3's and M roadster/coupes are so nice maybe the possible problem is worth it. Thanks for letting me be so long winded....

Cindy,

I would still buy the car! Have it checked out and if it shows any signs of damage developing, just use that as a negotiating tool. For a price reference (how much the selling price should be adjusted) the cars I've fixed have cost their owners a low of $2500.00 to perhaps $3000.00, depending on your choice of differential cover.

Unfortunately, the 01/02s are also affected.

They're still great cars, and if you consider how many Z3/M Coupes and Rdstrs have been written off in accidents, this is a comparatively minor repair. It wouldn't sway my decision to buy yet another one.

Originally Posted by Randy Forbes

It wouldn't sway my decision to buy yet another one.

Somone stop this guy before he buys them all up!