GM Dexcool LIM lawsuit settlement

[Treviathon]

Does anyone know how to go about claming this? I've had 2 LIM repairs within the first 4 years of owning my car that I payed good money for. Would be great to see some of that back.

Trev

[stillriza]

Originally Posted by Metallman56

that is correct. however, mine is a 01. so if you do the math, i'm about to be screwed, aint i?

that is true, but you should be able to claim any repairs done within the timeframe. i need some time to go through the legal stuff.

I did the repair myself, so does that mean I can submit the receipt for the parts only? What about my time? The water pump seal blew yesterday...dexcool the cause? Fixed that too myself...reman water pump was $33

[Graxall]

The first one says if the LIm was a outdated LIM AND there was dexcool fluid used, how can I prove OR how can they disprove Dexcool was used?

[SikMindz]

I emailed the contact about both my previous LIM repairs. I'll put up the response when I hear back.

[gaowners32]

Originally Posted by SikMindz

I emailed the contact about both my previous LIM repairs. I'll put up the response when I hear back.

did the same concerning my car.

[simone0414]

I have an 01 with the LIM leaking now. I haven't repaired it yet. Started about 2 months ago. It has 170 km on it.

Am I too late for this?? Sounds like I am.

[vegetadzp31]

Originally Posted by Treviathon

Does anyone know how to go about claming this? I've had 2 LIM repairs within the first 4 years of owning my car that I payed good money for. Would be great to see some of that back.

Trev

I have had LIM repairs last year and i would like to know how i would go about filing a claim

[SikMindz]

Originally Posted by SikMindz

I emailed the contact about both my previous LIM repairs. I'll put up the response when I hear back.

Originally Posted by gaowners32

did the same concerning my car.

Heard nothing back yet.

Has anyone else?

[gaowners32]

Not a damn thing.

[williamGT]

My car goes to GM on march 4th to get it looked at again, They told me in january it was fine, So today I opened my hood and smell coolent and saw the LIM gasket leak got bad...I called GM canada and they said when the dealer looks at it here, I have to give them a call back, and see if it will be covered. But my warranty run out last year, and I had the LIM gasket changed in November 2006....Damn car I just had my tranny put in last week.
Oh BTW when I had it fixed in november 2006 they told me that it was the new GM gasket.

[2003SCT]

My car has been pretty trouble free but I believe my LIM is leaking again and it has been replaced twice now...so this would be my third time

Being that it is a 2003 and that the mileage is at 60,000 or so, I wonder if I could get someone to cover it based on the fact that it will(including the original gasket) be the 4th gasket on the motor. Everytime has been under warranty/GM dealer but now its not under warranty.

What do you guys think...I mean its not a lemon law but the repair itself should be a lemon repair for that part.

CHRIS

[stillriza]

I duno. I am off to the dealership today. My first lim repair. Deserves a thread of it's own.

[Exodus]

Am I still entitled for reimbursment even though I no longer own the peice of crap?

[stillriza]

im gona ask the service manager this stuff when i go in today.

[baker07]

i replaced my LIM 3 times now but i guess i cant get any money out of it since i got all the parts for free from guys in the shop they should pay my for my time tho that would be nice

[boomer]

What I don't understand is that if DEXCOOL is such crap, what's it doing in my engine? Any thinking about replacing it?

[Malaclypse]

Originally Posted by boomer

What I don't understand is that if DEXCOOL is such crap, what's it doing in my engine? Any thinking about replacing it?

Its because the problem isn't actually dexcool. Its a faulty gasket design. The dexcool only becomes a problem when the fluid level is low and a normally closed system is exposed to air pockets.

But don't look at a judge, jury, or anyone else that doesn't directly work with Dexcool or GMs lower intake gaskets for a correct answer on that one.

[stillriza]

DEX isn't the problem, it's the ****ty gasket that's the problem. There's quite a few vehicles that use the same type of coolant without the problems that we have.

I contacted the dealership again today to get some info or contact info for a gm rep. Still waiting on a call back. those bishes! It's like..they are delaying this on purpose hoping by the time they agree to do this, not many people will have thier GA's or they are out of the specified 'repair' period.

[stillriza]

Got some info. Mostly relevant to canadian consumers with the LIM issue, but states pretty much same course of action so far for US consumers as well. One of you guys down south should look into this. Contact your GM rep for more info!

The date for hearing the motion originally set for December 2007, later adjourned on consent to March 2008, has now been further adjourned because a settlement in principle is imminent <For both US/CND consumers

LATEST NEWS
The certification motion which was scheduled to be argued March 25-28, 2008, has been further adjourned by agreement between the parties. As the settlement discussions are now significantly advanced, plaintiffs' counsel agreed to an adjournment. An agreement in principle is expected in the near future. It is anticipated that the settlement terms will ensure that Canadian consumers obtain the same benefits as a settlement which is likely to be announced soon in various U.S. class actions. We hope to post further details within the next two or three weeks.

Canadians who experienced the LIM..Please fill in the form on this link below in order to be placed in the database for Potential Representative Plaintiff /Settlement>>> https://www.gmcanadianclassaction.ca/forms/form.html

Other relevant info/timeline
Colin Stevenson and Harvin Pitch act together with Koskie Minsky LLP for the plaintiffs in a national class action against General Motors of Canada Limited and General Motors Corporation. The claim alleges that the defendants manufactured, in the 1995-2003 model years, motor vehicles with a defective intake manifold gasket (IMG).

The IMG regulates the flow of air and fuel into the cylinders. The allegation is that the IMG degrades prematurely causing coolant to leak into the engine. In particular, the plastic used to manufacture the IMG facilitated corrosion because it permitted leakage from the coolant system. The IMG did not properly seal the engine, causing leaks to occur. Among other consequences, the coolant mixes with engine oil making the oil ineffective and damaging the engine. In some cases engines overheat and seize completely creating a danger to the operator and occupants and requiring complete engine replacements.

The claim, therefore, is based on negligence, including the failure to warn the class of the problems and to rectify the problems. The damages are difficult to assess but a claim has been made for restitution of the defendants' savings, which are estimated to be about $1,200,000,000 in Canada alone.

The plaintiffs' counsel have teamed up with counsel across the country to advance similar claims in most provinces. View the claims issued to date:

British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario, New Brunswick , Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, P.E.I.


Comparable actions in the United States have been hard-fought and continue to be pursued in various jurisdictions. In January 2006 a similar claim was certified as a class action in Missouri, and in September 2007 another claim was certified in Arizona.

The plaintiffs served their certification motion record on February 28, 2007. The date for hearing the motion originally set for December 2007, later adjourned on consent to March 2008, has now been further adjourned because a settlement in principle is imminent.
GM made it clear they would vigorously oppose a national class. The defendants brought a motion to strike out parts of the claim and the plaintiffs’ materials. This motion was refused by Justice Cullity on June 8, 2007. GM then sought leave to appeal to Divisional Court. Leave to appeal was denied on June 26, 2007.

The defendants filed their responding certification materials on August 16, 2007. The plaintiffs served reply materials in September 2007.

During September and October 2007, cross-examinations of the various witnesses and scientific experts were conducted by both sides.

IThe motion had been scheduled to be heard by Justice Cullity of the Ontario Superior Court in December 2007 and later in March 2008. Settlement discussions between the parties are continuing, however. Counsel have agreed to postpone the motion in anticipation of signing a settlement agreement, which will be subject to court approval.

If you have information about this problem please complete and remit our secure online questionnaire, or if you prefer, print out the questionnaire to submit by fax or mail.

Since the national claim was commenced in Ontario there has been an outpouring of interest by affected consumers across the country. We have assembled a national team of law firms to pursue this claim vigorously on your behalf. The following is the list of lawyers working with us, together with their websites and email addresses. For those of you who have already sent us information we will forward it to the appropriate lawyers. If you have not yet completed the questionnaire and remitted it, you may either send it to us or to your local law firm: