Corvette Lawsuit

Case 2:19-cv-03665-CJC-AFM Document 1 Filed 04/30/19 Page 1 of 50 Page ID #:1
1 Mark A. Ozzello (SBN 116595)

2 Mark.Ozzello@capstonelawyers.com
Tarek H. Zohdy (SBN 247775)
3 Tarek.Zohdy@capstonelawyers.com
Cody R. Padgett (SBN 275553)
4 Cody.Padgett@capstonelawyers.com
Trisha K. Monesi (SBN 303512)
5 Trisha.Monesi@capstonelawyers.com
Capstone Law APC
6 1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000
Los Angeles, California 90067
7 Telephone: (310) 556-4811
Facsimile: (310) 943-0396
8 Attorneys for Plaintiff
9
10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
11 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
12
13 ANTHONY NARDIZZI, Case No.: 5:17-cv-01870 FMO
individually, and on behalf of a class
14 of similarly situated individuals, CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
FOR:
15 Plaintiff,
(1) Violations of California’s
16 v. Consumers Legal Remedies Act
(2) Violations of Unfair Competition
17 GENERAL MOTORS LLC, a Law
Delaware limited liability company, (3) Breach of Implied Warranty
18 pursuant to Song-Beverly
Defendant. Consumer Warranty Act
19 (4) Breach of Express Warranty
(5) Breach of Written Warranty under
20 the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act
(6) Breach of Implied Warranty under
21 the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act
(7) Unjust Enrichment
22 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
23
24
25
26
27
28
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

1 1. Plaintiff Anthony Nardizzi (“Plaintiff”) brings this action for

2 himself and on behalf of all persons in the United States who purchased or leased
3 any 2015 to present Chevrolet Corvette Z06 or 2017 to present Chevrolet
4 Corvette Grand Sport vehicle (“Class Vehicles”) designed, manufactured,
5 marketed, distributed, sold, warranted, and/or serviced by General Motors LLC
6 (“GM” or “Defendant”). Plaintiff alleges as follows:
7 INTRODUCTION
8 2. This is a consumer class action concerning a failure to disclose
9 material facts and a safety concern to consumers.
10 3. General Motors LLC manufactured, marketed, distributed, and sold
11 the Class Vehicles without disclosing that the Class Vehicles’ wheels were
12 defective.
13 4. The Class Vehicles are equipped with wheels (a.k.a., rims) that
14 warp, bend and crack, necessitating costly repairs and replacements. In addition,
15 cracked rims can puncture the tires, causing air leaks and tire blowouts
16 (collectively, the “Rim Defect.”)
17 5. The problem is widespread. In fact, during Car & Driver magazine’s
18 long-term review of a 2017 Chevrolet Corvette GS, three of its wheels bent, and
19 one of them cracked. The repairs and replacement cost $1,119, which GM
20 refused to cover under warranty.1
21 6. Plaintiff Anthony Nardizzi purchased a new 2018 Chevrolet
22 Corvette in June 2018. By the time Mr. Nardizzi’s vehicle left the dealership and
23 arrived at a third-party wheel finisher, it already had two bent wheels.
24 7. GM knew of the Rim Defect well before Plaintiff Nardizzi’s
25 purchase in June 2018. By 2017, GM had received numerous complaints
26 regarding the bending and cracking rims, and GM monitored and responded to
27
1
28 See https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews...pdate-3-review.
Page 1
1 these complaints. For example, on August 31, 2017, a Corvette Grand Sport
2 owner wrote:
3
4 There have been a lot of reports of stock wheels bending
on Grand Sports and Z06s here lately, and I’ve had one
5 of my own front wheels bend on a brand new Grand
6 Sport. In my situation, there was absolutely no damage,
scratch or even a mark anywhere—the wheel just went
7 out of round with less than 1,000 miles on the car.
8 Why is this happening, is Chevy aware of this happening
on more than an isolated occurrence, and what is being
9 done to remedy the situation?2
10
8. On October 18, 2017, GM responded by denying that there had been
11
a “rash” of wheel failures, denying the existence of a defect, and blaming the
12
customer. GM wrote:
13
14 “A frequent sequence of events is that a wheel gets bent
15 by a road hazard but the damage is initially undetectable
to the driver…. Over time fatigue cracks can form after
16 thousands or even millions of cycles…. we will
17 continuously improve our designs and validation
procedures based on how the world is changing.”
18
19 9. Although GM sold its Corvette with a 3-year, 36,000-mile Bumper-
20 to-Bumper warranty, GM is refusing to cover the Rim Defect, arguing that the
21 customers’ driving and the roads are to blame for the wheel failures.
22 10. In GM’s warranty, GM agreed to cover repairs to cover any vehicle
23 defect except for “slight noise, vibrations, or other normal characteristics of the
24 vehicle due to materials or workmanship occurring during the warranty period.”
25 See paragraph 115, infra. By refusing to cover repairs or replacements of the
26 bent and cracked rims, GM is breaching its Bumper-to-Bumper warranty.
27 2
https://www.corvetteforum.com/forums/ask-tadge/4036656-asked-grand-
28 sport-z06-wheels-bending.html
Page 2
1 11. The Rim Defect is inherent in each Class Vehicle and was present at
2 the time of sale.
3 12. Although GM was sufficiently aware of the Rim Defect from pre-
4 production testing, design failure mode analysis, calls to its customer service
5 hotline, and customer complaints made to dealers, this knowledge and
6 information was exclusively in the possession of GM and its network of dealers
7 and, therefore, unavailable to consumers.
8 13. Despite access to aggravate internal data, GM has actively
9 concealed the existence of the defect, telling customers that the wheels are not
10 defective and that the cracked wheels are caused by potholes or other driver
11 error.
12 14. GM sells the Class Vehicles with a 3-year, 36,000-mile bumper-to-
13 bumper warranty. However, when class members bring their vehicles to GM’s
14 authorized dealerships requesting coverage for the Rim Defect, GM is
15 systematically denying coverage. As a result, Class Members are paying
16 thousands of dollars out-of-pocket to repair and replace the wheels with equally
17 defective wheels.
18 15. The Rim Defect is material because it poses a serious safety
19 concern. Cracked rims can cause the tire to fail and explode while driving,
20 leading to a sudden loss of control at speed and a potential collision.
21 16. The Rim Defect is also a material fact because consumers incur
22 significant and unexpected repair costs. GM’s failure to disclose material facts
23 regarding the Rim Defect at the time of purchase is material because no
24 reasonable consumer expects to spend hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars to
25 repair or replace defective rims.
26 17. Had GM disclosed the Rim Defect, Plaintiff and Class Members
27 would not have purchased the Class Vehicles, would have paid less for them.
28
Page 3
1 THE PARTIES
2 Plaintiff Anthony Nardizzi
3 18. Plaintiff Anthony Nardizzi is a California citizen who resides in
4 Valencia, California.
5 19. On or around June 7, 2018, Plaintiff Nardizzi leased a new 2018
6 Chevrolet Corvette from Santa Paula Chevrolet, an authorized GM dealer in
7 Valencia, California.
8 20. Plaintiff Nardizzi purchased his Corvette primarily for personal,
9 family, or household use.
10 21. Passenger safety and reliability were important factors in Plaintiff
11 Nardizzi’s decision to purchase his vehicle. Before making his purchase,
12 Plaintiff Nardizzi researched the 2018 Chevrolet Corvette on GM’s official
13 website, on dealership websites, and through general Google searches. In
14 addition, before purchase, Plaintiff Nardizzi also reviewed the vehicle’s
15 Monroney Sticker or “window sticker” which listed official information about
16 the vehicle. Plaintiff Nardizzi believed that the Corvette would be a safe and
17 reliable vehicle.
18 22. GM’s omissions were material to Plaintiff Nardizzi. Had GM
19 disclosed its knowledge of the Rim Defect before he purchased his Corvette,
20 Plaintiff Nardizzi would have seen and been aware of the disclosures.
21 Furthermore, had he known of the Rim Defect, Plaintiff Nardizzi would not have
22 purchased his vehicle, or would have paid less for it.
23 23. Upon purchasing the vehicle from the dealership, Mr. Nardizzi had
24 the vehicle brought directly to Impression Auto Salon. CalChrome, a third-party
25 wheel finisher, picked up the rims to have them coated. While inspecting the
26 vehicle, CalChrome took a video showing that the rims were bent. As a result,
27 Mr. Nardizzi replaced his vehicle’s wheels at an out-of-pocket cost of $7,500.
28
Page 4
1 24. Mr. Nardizzi complained to Santa Paula Chevrolet and asked that
2 his wheels be covered under GM’s bumper-to-bumper warranty. The GM
3 dealership told Mr. Nardizzi that the wheels warped because of Mr. Nardizzi’s
4 driving and that GM would not cover any portion of the repair. In addition, the
5 derlership told Mr. Nardizzi that he could not replace the rims because they were
6 backordered three to six months.
7 25. Mr. Nardizzi continued to request that GM cover a portion of the
8 repairs by contacting GM directly, and GM agreed to cover $1,200 of Mr.
9 Nardizzi’s $7,500 out of pocket cost.
10 26. At all times, Plaintiff Nardizzi, like all Class Members, has driven
11 his Chevrolet Corvette in a manner both foreseeable and in which it was intended
12 to be used.
13 Defendant
14 27. Defendant General Motors LLC is a Delaware limited liability
15 company with its principle place of business located at 300 Renaissance Center,
16 Detroit, Michigan. General Motors LLC is registered to do business in the State
17 of California. The sole member and owner of General Motors LLC is General
18 Motors Holdings LLC. General Motors Holdings LLC is a Delaware limited
19 liability company with its principle place of business in the State of Michigan.
20 General Motors Holdings LLC’s only member is General Motor Company, a
21 Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in the State of
22 Michigan. General Motors Company has 100% ownership interest in General
23 Motors Holdings LLC.
24 28. General Motors LLC, through its various entities, designs,
25 manufactures, markets, distributes, services, repairs, sells, and leases passenger
26 vehicles, including the Class Vehicles, nationwide and in California. General
27 Motors LLC is the warrantor and distributor of the Class Vehicles in the United
28
Page 5
1 States.
2 29. At all relevant times, Defendant was and is engaged in the business
3 of designing, manufacturing, constructing, assembling, marketing, distributing,
4 and selling automobiles and motor vehicle components in Los Angeles County
5 and throughout the United States of America.
6 JURISDICTION
7 30. This is a class action.
8 31. Members of the proposed Class are citizens of states different from
9 the home state of Defendant.
10 32. On information and belief, aggregate claims of individual Class
11 Members exceed $5,000,000.00 in value, exclusive of interest and costs.
12 33. Jurisdiction is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d).
13 VENUE
14 34. GM, through its business of distributing, selling, and leasing the
15 Class Vehicles, has established sufficient contacts in this district such that
16 personal jurisdiction is appropriate. Defendant is deemed to reside in this district
17 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a).
18 35. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)
19 because Plaintiff Nardizzi resides in the County of Los Angeles, California. In
20 addition, Plaintiff Nardizzi’s Declaration, as required under California Civil
21 Code section 1780(d) but not pursuant to Erie and federal procedural rules,
22 reflects that a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims
23 alleged herein occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of this
24 action, is situated in Los Angeles, California. It is attached as Exhibit 1.
25 FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
26 36. Since 2014, GM has designed, manufactured, distributed, sold, and
27 leased the Class Vehicles. GM has sold, directly or indirectly, through dealers
28
Page 6
1 and other retail outlets, thousands of Class Vehicles in California and

2 nationwide. GM warrants and services the Class Vehicles through its nationwide
3 network of authorized dealers and service providers.
4 37. The rim is a large metal circle on which the tire is placed. The rim
5 creates the shape of the tire and allows it to be mounted to the vehicle.
6 38. GM equipped the Class Vehicles with cast aluminum alloy rims.
7 Figure one, below, shows the OEM rims for the Chevrolet Corvette Grand Sport.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
39. The rims are prone to warping and cracking at extremely low
21
mileages. The following complaint to NHTSA describes the circumstance well:
22
23 Noticed a vibration in the car at highway speeds. Took
the vehicle into the dealer and was told that the wheel
24
was bent. Service manager stated that this was happening
25 to many Corvettes and was due to the stiffness of the tire
and the weakness of the factory wheel. GM has denied a
26
claim under warranty.
27
28 See paragraph 48(k), infra.
Page 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 40. The problem is widespread. In a section entitled “Wheel Woes,” Car
9 & Driver magazine reported that, during its long-term review of a 2017
10 Chevrolet Corvette Grand Sport, the vehicle suffered three bent rims and a $1119
11 repair bill:
12
Shortly after its first trip to the test track, however, the
13 Grand Sport showed signs of an ailment that would dog
14 us throughout our time with the car. At just under 6500
miles we discovered that three of its wheels were bent.
15 Two were repaired, but one was cracked and had to be
16 replaced. In all, that was an $1119 trip to the Corvette
cobbler, none of which was covered by warranty.3
17
18 41. The Rim Defect alleged is inherent in and the same for all Class
19 Vehicles.
20 42. The Rim Defect is material to consumers because it presents a
21 serious safety concern. Cracked rims can cause the tire to fail and explode while
22 driving, leading to a sudden loss of control at speed and a potential collision. In
23 addition, bent rims can cause the vehicle to vibrate which makes the vehicle less
24 stable and can cause driver distraction.
25 GM Had Superior and Exclusive Knowledge of the Rim Defect
26 43. GM is aware of the Rim Defect and tells its customers that the
27 3
https://www.yahoo.com/news/redemption-2017-chevrolet-corvette-
28 grand-202000878.html
Page 8
1 wheels are not defective and that the cracks are caused by the drivers. GM is also
2 refusing to cover the Rim Defect under warranty.
3 44. Corvette owners communicate through online forums such as
4 www.CorvetteForum.com. GM monitors these online forums and communicates
5 with its customers. For example, on August 31, 2017, a Corvette Grand Sport
6 owner wrote:
7
There have been a lot of reports of stock wheels bending
8 on Grand Sports and Z06s here lately, and I’ve had one
9 of my own front wheels bend on a brand new Grand
Sport. In my situation, there was absolutely no damage,
10 scratch or even a mark anywhere—the wheel just went
11 out of round with less than 1,000 miles on the car.
Why is this happening, is Chevy aware of this happening
12 on more than an isolated occurrence, and what is being
13 done to remedy the situation?4
14 45. On October 18, 2017, GM responded by denying that there had been
15 a “rash” of wheel failures, denying the existence of a defect, and blaming the
16 customer: “A frequent sequence of events is that a wheel gets bent by a road
17 hazard but the damage is initially undetectable to the driver…. Over time fatigue
18 cracks can form after thousands or even millions of cycles.”5 With respect to a
19 remedy, GM only stated that “we will continuously improve our designs and
20 validation procedures based on how the world is changing.”
21 46. To date, GM continues to refuse to cover the Rim Defect under
22 warranty, and has not issued any relief to the customers who have had to pay
23 thousands out-of-pocket as a result.
24 47. GM also monitors customers’ complaints made to the National
25
4
26 https://www.corvetteforum.com/forums/ask-tadge/4036656-asked-grand-
sport-z06-wheels-bending.html
27 5
https://www.corvetteforum.com/forums/ask-tadge/4055813-answered-
28 grand-sport-z06-wheels-bending.html
Page 9
1 Highway Traffic Safety Administration (“NHTSA.”) Federal law requires

2 automakers like GM to be in close contact with NHTSA regarding potential auto
3 defects, including imposing a legal requirement (backed by criminal penalties)
4 compelling the confidential disclosure of defects and related data by automakers
5 to NHTSA, including field reports, customer complaints, and warranty data. See
6 TREAD Act, Pub. L. No. 106-414, 114 Stat.1800 (2000).
7 48. Automakers have a legal obligation to identify and report emerging
8 safety-related defects to NHTSA under the Early Warning Report requirements.
9 Id. Similarly, automakers monitor NHTSA databases for consumer complaints
10 regarding their automobiles as part of their ongoing obligation to identify
11 potential defects in their vehicles, including safety-related defects. Id. Thus, GM
12 knew or should have known of the many complaints about the Rim Defect
13 logged by NHTSA ODI, and the content, consistency, and large number of those
14 complaints alerted, or should have alerted, GM to the Rim Defect.
15 49. The following are some examples of the scores of complaints
16 concerning the Rim Defect available through NHTSA’s website,
17 www.safercar.gov. Many of the complaints reveal that GM, through its network
18 of dealers and repair technicians, was made aware of the cracked rims. In
19 addition, the complaints indicate that despite having knowledge of the defect and
20 the exact vehicles affected, GM blamed the customer and refused to honor its 3-
21 year, 36,000-mile bumper-to-bumper warranty.
22
23 a. DATE OF INCIDENT: July 20, 2017
DATE COMPLAINT FILED: September 21, 2017
24 NHTSA/ODI ID: 11024830
25 SUMMARY: MY 2016 CORVETTE STARTED HAVING HIGH
FREQUENCY VIBRATIONS IN STEERING WHEEL AND
26 INTERIOR PANELS WITH UNDER 7900 MILES OF SERVICE. I
27 COMPLAINED TO THE DEALERSHIP SERVICE DEPARTMENT
ABOUT THE PROBLEM AND FOUND FRONT WHEELS TO BE
28
Page 10
1 BENT AND COULD NOT BALANCE THE WHEELS PROPERLY.

THE DEALERSHIP ADVISED ME TO TAKE MY CORVETTE TO
2 ANOTHER DEALERSHIP THAT HAD BETTER EQUIPMENT
3 THAN THEM. THE SECOND DEALERSHIP INSPECTED MY
CORVETTE AND INFORMED ME THAT ALL FOUR WHEELS
4 ARE BENT AND CANNOT BALANCE THEM PROPERLY.
5 NEITHER DEALERSHIP WILL REPLACE THE WHEELS UNDER
WARRANTY. THUS FAR, GM AS WELL, WILL NOT REPLACE
6 WHEELS UNDER WARRANTY. I ATTEST THAT I HAVE NOT
7 DRIVEN MY CORVETTE ABNORMALLY NOR HAVE HIT
OBSTRUCTIONS OR POT HOLES. I HAVE NEVER DRIVEN MY
8 CORVETTE ON ROUGH, GRAVEL OR DIRT ROADS. I DO
9 BELIEVE THIS IS A VERY SERIOUS SAFETY PROBLEM THAT
CHEVROLET AND GM SHOULD ADDRESS BEFORE
10 SOMEONE HAS A TERRIBLE ACCIDENT BECAUSE OF THESE
11 WHEELS!
12 b. DATE OF INCIDENT: August 19, 2017

13 DATE COMPLAINT FILED: September 20, 2017
NHTSA/ODI ID: 11024700
14 SUMMARY: BOTH LEFT WHEELS ON MY 2017 GRAND
15 SPORT BENT IN NORMAL DRIVING OVER NORMAL ROADS.
IN RESEARCHING THE ISSUE, THIS SEEMS TO BE A
16 RECURRING PROBLEM WITH THE STOCK WHEELS ON 2017-
17 2018 CORVETTE GRAND SPORTS AND 2015-18 CORVETTE
Z06S. GM AGREED TO REPLACE THE FRONT WHEEL, BUT
18 THE DEALER DIDN'T REALIZE THE REAR WAS ALSO BENT
19 (NO VISIBLE DAMAGE TO EITHER WHEEL, THE WHEELS
ARE JUST NOT STRONG ENOUGH). GM IS NOW CLAIMING
20 THEY WON'T FIX/REPLACE THE REAR WHEEL. CAR
21 VIBRATES BECAUSE OF THE BENT WHEEL.
22 c. DATE OF INCIDENT: October 13, 2017
23 DATE COMPLAINT FILED: October 20, 2017
24 SUMMARY: TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2015 CHEVROLET
25 CORVETTE. WHILE THE CONTACT WAS HAVING TIRES
INSTALLED AT BILL STASEK CHEVROLET (700 W DUNDEE
26 RD, WHEELING, IL), HE WAS INFORMED THAT ALL THE
27 RIMS WERE CRACKED AND THE REAR PASSENGER WHEEL
WAS LEAKING. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF
28
Page 11
1 THE FAILURES. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS

APPROXIMATELY 13,466.
2
3
d. DATE OF INCIDENT: December 20, 2017
SUMMARY: CRACKED REAR WHEEL. I PURCHASED THE
6 CAR USED AND THIS WAS DISCOVERED DURING AN
7 INSPECTION.
8 e. DATE OF INCIDENT: January 8, 2018

9 DATE COMPLAINT FILED: January 10, 2019
10 SUMMARY: BOTH OF MY OEM REAR WHEELS (SPECTRA
11 GRAY - 10 SPOKE), HAVE DEVELOPED CRACKS REQUIRING
REPLACEMENT AT MY EXPENSE. DESPITE MY CORVETTE
12 BEING ON WARRANTY AND A HIGH PERFORMANCE,
13 SPORTS CAR WHICH IS REGULARLY SERVICED, THE
CHEVROLET DEALERSHIP REFUSES TO REPLACE THESE
14 WHEELS, EXCEPT AT MY EXPENSE, CITING THAT POOR
15 ROAD CONDITIONS IN CALIFORNIA ARE BLAME FOR THE
FRACTURES, RUNNING HORIZONTALLY ON THE RIM LIP.
16 THE FRACTURES CREATE A VERY DANGEROUS SITUATION
17 GIVEN HIGH TORQUE LEVELS, LOW PROFILE TIRES WITH A
WIDE STANCE. THE TIRES AND THE SUSPENSION ARE
18 DESIGNED FOR HIGH PERFORMANCE, AND HIGH G FORCE,
19 BUT WHEELS ARE APPARENTLY FLAWED FOR THE
DESIGNED TOLERANCES IMPOSED BY DRIVING A HIGH
20 PERFORMANCE CORVETTE. MY CAR RAPIDLY LOSS AIR
21 PRESSURE AT FREEWAY SPEEDS AND THE AIR PRESSURE
WARNING LIGHT ACTIVATED IN BOTH OCCASIONS,
22 WARNING OF THE HAZARDOUS CONDITION.
23
f. DATE OF INCIDENT: February 2, 2018
24 DATE COMPLAINT FILED: February 6, 2018
SUMMARY: I PURCHASED AN OPTIONAL CHROME WHEEL
26 UPGRADE WHICH WAS DELIVERED WITH NEW VEHICLE.
27 RIGHT REAR WHEEL CRACKED AND LOST AIR PRESSURE
AFTER 4,000 MILES, LEFT REAR WHEEL CRACKED AND
28
Page 12
1 LOST AIR PRESSURE AFTER 6,800 MILES.
2
3 g. DATE OF INCIDENT: June 11, 2018
DATE COMPLAINT FILED: July 5, 2018
5 SUMMARY: BOTH REAR WHEELS DEVELOPED CRACKS
APPROXIMATELY TWO INCHES LONG FROM THE INSIDE
6 EDGE TOWARD THE MIDDLE OF THE WHEEL. THE CRACKS
7 IN BOTH WHEELS WERE SIMILAR IN SIZE AND LOCATION.
MILEAGE WHEN NOTICED WAS 24,000. NUMEROUS
8 REPORTS OF THE SAME ISSUE ARE BEING REPORTED ON
9 CORVETTE RELATED WEB SITES.
10 h. DATE OF INCIDENT: August 4, 2018

11 DATE COMPLAINT FILED: September 27, 2018
12 SUMMARY: HAD 3 OF THE 4 RIMS BEND, PER THE DEALER
13 DIAGNOSIS, FOR NO APPARENT REASON. CAR HAD 2,000
MILES ON IT. IT SEEMS TO BE A SYSTEMIC PROBLEM.
14 THERE ARE MULTIPLE POSTS ABOUT THIS ISSUE, ALONG
15 WITH THE WHEELS CRACKING FOR NO REASON, AT THE
FOLLOWING INTERNET FORUM;
16
17 HTTPS://WWW.CORVETTEFORUM.COM/FORUMS/C7-
GENERAL-DISCUSSION-142/
18
19 IN MY INSTANCE THE CAR DROVE FINE THE EVENING
BEFORE (I'D ACTUALLY PICKED IT UP FROM THE DEALER
20 THE SAME DAY AS THEY REPAIRED ANOTHER ISSUE). GOT
21 IN THE CAR THE NEXT MORNING TO GO TO WORK AND
NOTICED THE BAD VIBRATION. I THOUGHT A WHEEL
22 WEIGHT HAD FALLEN OFF. TOOK IT TO THE DEALER AND
23 AFTER DIAGNOSIS THEY INFORMED ME THAT 3 OF THE 4
RIMS WERE BENT (BOTH PASSENGER SIDE AND DRIVER
24 REAR).
25
i. DATE OF INCIDENT: August 5, 2018
SUMMARY: GM IS PUTTING DEFECTIVE WHEELS ON
28
Page 13
1 GRAND SPORT AND Z06 CORVETTES. THESE WHEELS WILL

NOT WITHSTAND NORMAL DRIVING ON ANY HIGHWAY.
2 THE ISSUE IS THAT THESE WHEELS BEND ON IMPACT, BE
3 IT EXPANSION JOINTS ALONG BRIDGES OR SMALL
IMPERFECTIONS IN THE ROADWAY THAT OTHER CARS
4 HANDLE EVERY DAY.
5
THE ISSUE IS THAT GM SAYS THESE ARE ROAD HAZARDS
6 AND THEY ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE. THE WHEELS WERE
7 NOT ENGINEERED TO TAKE NORMAL DRIVING ON ROADS
ANYWHERE.
8
9 THIS STARTED IN JUNE AFTER A TRIP I TOOK AND THE CAR
PICKED UP A VIBRATION. TOOK IT TO S DEALER AND HE
10 SAID THE WHEELS WERE BENT AND NOT COVERED UNDER
11 WARRANTY AND WOULD SELL ME NEW ONES 2 FRONT
WHEELS FOR ABOUT $1800. I THEN TOOK THE CAR HOME
12 AND TOOK THE FRONT WHEELS OFF AND HAD THEM
13 STRAIGHTENED AT A COST OF $110 EACH. I THOUGHT
THAT TOOK CARE OF THE PROBLEM SO WE DROVE THE
14 CAR ON ANOTHER TRIP TO NOVA SCOTIA, CANADA. WE
15 WERE ON A TRIP AND LOST AIR IN THE LEFT FRONT TIRE (
PICTURE BELOW ) IT HAD WORN ALL THE WAY DOWN
16 THROUGH ALL THE BELTS DUE TO THE WHEELS BEING
17 BENT AGAIN. SEE ALL 3 PICTURES.
18 THESE WHEELS ARE A SAFETY HAZARD FOR THESE CARS
19 TO USE ON PUBLIC HIGHWAYS AS THEY DEVELOP CRACKS
AND CAUSE SEVERE TIRE WEAR IN SHORT PERIODS OF
20 TIME.
21
I HAD ANOTHER SET OF BRAND NEW WHEELS AT HOME. I
22 HAD TO COME BACK HOME AND GET THEM AND TAKE
23 THEM BACK TO CANADA TO GET MY CAR HOME. ON THE
1700 MILE TRIP BACK THE CAR DEVELOPED A VIBRATION
24 AND WHEN I TOOK IT BACK TO MY TIRE DEALER HE SAID
25 THAT THE RIGHT FRONT WHEEL WAS BENT.
26 THE BIG ISSUE IS GM DOES NOT TRACK THESE ISSUES IF
27 YOU DO NOT BUY THE NEW WHEELS FROM THEM AND IT
GOES UNREPORTED. A FRIEND OF MINE WHO HAS LESS
28
Page 14
1 THAN 5000 MILES ON HIS 2019 NEEDS TO BUY 4 WHEELS

AND 4 TIRES AND THE DEALER EVEN TOLD US THERE
2 WERE 2 PEOPLE THE WEEK BEFORE THAT HAD BENT RIMS
3 ON I-71.
4 j. DATE OF INCIDENT: August 25, 2018

5 DATE COMPLAINT FILED: November 2, 2018
6 SUMMARY: AFTER DRIVING THE CAR THE TIRE PRESSURE
7 WARNING CAME ON AND WE STARTED NOTICING THE TIRE
PRESSURE LEAKING ON THE RIGHT REAR OF MY WIFE
8 GRAND SPORT CORVETTE, THE WHEEL WAS TAKEN OFF TO
9 INVESTIGATE THE CAUSE OF LEAK. IT WAS DISCOVERED
THAT THERE WAS A CRACK ALONE THE BEAD RING AREA
10 OF THE INSIDE DRUM AREA OF THE WHEEL. THE
11 DEALERSHIP REFUSED TO COVER UNDER WARRANTY AND
DIDN'T OFFER REPAIRS. THE WHEEL WAS TAKEN TO A
12 REPUTABLE WHEEL REPAIR SHOP WITH A GUARANTEE ON
13 THE REPAIR. AFTER DRIVING THE CAR APPROXIMATELY
1000 MILE THE SAME WHEEL STARTED TO LEAK AGAIN.
14 AFTER REMOVING THE WHEEL THERE WAS ANOTHER
15 CRACK APPROXIMATELY 180 DEGREES FROM THE
REPAIRED CRACK. AFTER REFUSING TO DRIVE THE
16 VEHICLE TO THE DEALERSHIP WITH A CRACKED WHEEL,
17 IT WAS REMOVED FROM THE CAR AND TAKEN TO THE
DEALERSHIP AND ALSO CALLED THE GM PRIORITY CARE
18 AT 866-636-2273. GM PRIORITY CARE GAVE ME THE CASE
19 NUMBER 8-4778215369 . THE DEALERSHIP STILL REFUSED
TO COVER THE WHEEL UNDER WARRANTY BUT OFFERED
20 TO SELL ME ANOTHER WHEEL FOR $250. THE VEHICLE
21 CURRENTLY HAS 19000MILES AND IS MY WIFE'S DAILY
DRIVER FOR WORK. THE CAR HAS NOT BEEN ABUSED OR
22 INVOLVED IN ANY ACCIDENTS. IT HAS BEEN PAINTED DUE
23 TO SCRATCHES FROM TORNADO WIND DAMAGE. I TOOK
PICTURES BEFORE THE REPAIR WAS MADE AND
24 ADDITIONAL PICTURE OF THE SECOND CRACK IN THE
25 SAME WHEEL. IN MY OPINION THE DEALERSHIP SHOULD
HAVE REPLACED THE WHEEL WHEN THE FIRST CRACK
26 OCCURRED. NOW I HAVE NO CONFIDENCE IN THE QUALITY
27 OF THE GRAND SPORT WHEELS AND WILL REFUSE THEIR
OFFER OF GETTING A WHEEL FOR $250. AFTER CHECKING
28
Page 15
1 WITH AN AFTERMARKET WHEEL COMPANY FOR

REPLACEMENT WHEELS, THEY NOTIFIED ME THAT GM IS
2 AWARE THERE IS AN ISSUE WITH THE GRAND SPORT
3 WHEEL AND THAT I SHOULD TAKE IT TO THE DEALERSHIP
FOR REPLACEMENT. THE CAR IS CURRENTLY NOT SAFE TO
4 DRIVE UNTIL I GET A REPLACEMENT WHEEL. SEE
5 ATTACHED PHOTOS OF THE FIRST AND SECOND CRACK IN
THE WHEEL.
6
7 k. DATE OF INCIDENT: September 14, 2018
DATE COMPLAINT FILED: September 26, 2018
9 SUMMARY: WHEN I TOOK THE CAR INTO A DISCOUNT TIRE
STORE TO HAVE NEW TIRES PUT ON THE BACK AT ABOUT
10 15,600 MILES ON THE CAR CRACKS WERE FOUND ON THE
11 INSIDE RIM WHERE TIRE BEAD SEALS OF BOTH BACK
WHEELS. PROBLEM WAS IMMEDIATELY REPORTED TO
12 DEALER WHO VERIFIED CRACKS, BUT DEALER AND GM
13 REFUSED TO REPLACE UNLESS I PURCHASE NEW WHEELS
FOR DISCOUNTED PRICE OF $1,100.00 FOR REAR WHEELS
14 ONLY. SPOKE WITH REPRESENTATIVES OF GM
15 ENGINEERING AND FOUND PROBLEM IS A KNOWN ISSUE
WITH REAR WHEEL CRACKING GOING BACK SEVERAL
16 YEARS WITH CAST CHINA MADE WHEELS ON CORVETTE
17 Z06 AND ZR1 MODELS. I WAS TOLD GM CORVETTE CHIEF
ENGINEER HAS POSTED INFORMATION ON THE WHEEL
18 CRACKING PROBLEM ON CORVETTE FORUM AND ONLY
19 WAY TO NOT HAVE WHEEL CRACKING PROBLEM ON
REPLACEMENT WHEELS WOULD BE TO NOT DRIVE ON
20 ROADS WITH BUMPS OR POT HOLES. THEY AGREED THIS
21 WAS NOT REALISTIC BUT GM STANDS FIRM ON PAYMENT
FOR NEW WHEELS WITH NO ASSURANCE THIS WILL SOLVE
22 THE PROBLEM. MY COMPLAINT WAS CLOSED AT GM AS
23 CUSTOMER DECLINED REDUCED PRICE OFFER AND IS
DISSATISFIED. CRACKING WHEELS SHOULD BE A MAJOR
24 SAFETY CONCERN AND ESPECIALLY WITH CARS THAT
25 HAVE THIS MUCH POWER TO THE WHEELS AND ARE
CAPABLE OF THE SPEEDS THESE MODEL CARS CAN
26 OBTAIN. THIS IS TOTALLY IRRESPONSIBLE OF GM TO
27 ALLOW THIS TO HAPPEN AND NOT RECALL THE WHEELS
AND REPLACE THEM WITH ONES THAT DO NOT CRACK,
28
Page 16
1 ESPECIALLY ON CARS WITH SUCH LOW MILEAGE.
2
3 l. DATE OF INCIDENT: September 25, 2018
DATE COMPLAINT FILED: December 17, 2018
5 SUMMARY: NOTICED A VIBRATION IN THE CAR AT
HIGHWAY SPEEDS. TOOK THE VEHICLE INTO THE DEALER
6 AND WAS TOLD THAT THE WHEEL WAS BENT. SERVICE
7 MANAGER STATED THAT THIS WAS HAPPENING TO MANY
CORVETTES AND WAS DUE TO THE STIFFNESS OF THE TIRE
8 AND THE WEAKNESS OF THE FACTORY WHEEL. GM HAS
9 DENIED A CLAIM UNDER WARRANTY.
10 m. DATE OF INCIDENT: October 17, 2018

11 DATE COMPLAINT FILED: December 13, 2018
12 SUMMARY: FOUR REAR WHEELS HAVE CRACKED
13 LEAKING AIR AND HAVE NO EXTERNAL DAMAGE FROM
ROAD HAZARDS. TWO WERE REPLACED UNDER THE NEW
14 CAR WARRANTY AND TWO WERE REPLACED UNDER GM'S
15 PURCHASED EXTENDED WARRANTY. THE FIRST ONE,
RIGHT REAR, CRACKED ON 11/19/16 WITH 18,843 MILES ON
16 THE CAR. THE SECOND ONE,LEFT REAR, CRACKED ON
17 8/23/17 WITH 24,332 MILES ON THE CAR. THE THIRD
ONE,LEFT REAR, CRACKED ON 8/14/18 WITH 34,854 MILES
18 ON THE CAR. THE FOURTH ONE, RIGHT REAR, CRACKED ON
19 10/17/18 WITH 39,501 MILES ON THE CAR. CALLING THE GM
HOT LINE I WAS TOLD TO CONTACT MY GM SERVICE
20 DEPARTMENT IN REGARDS TO THIS ISSUE. THEY TOLD ME
21 THE THE WHEEL WAS DESIGNED TO CRACK TO PROTECT
THE REAR SUSPENSION !!! THIS IS A HUGE SAFETY ISSUE.
22 WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF THAT CRACK LEAD TO A WHEEL
23 FAILURE AT SPEED? I HAVE ALL MY GM SERVICE
STATEMENTS TO BACK THESE FACTS UP. GM NEEDS TO
24 CORRECT THE PROBLEM!
25
n. DATE OF INCIDENT: October 31, 2018
SUMMARY: CRACKED WHEEL AFTER DRIVING OVER
28
Page 17
1 SMALL POTHOLE ON THE INTERSTATE CAUSING CRACK IN

RIM AND SLOW LOSS OF TIRE AIR PRESSURE. CRACK IN
2 REAR WHEEL INBOARD FLANGE, WHEEL WAS NOT BENT
3 OR WARPED.
4 o. DATE OF INCIDENT: November 1, 2018

5 DATE COMPLAINT FILED: November 14, 2018
6 SUMMARY: TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2016 CHEVROLET
7 CORVETTE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THERE WAS A
FAILURE CONCERNING THE REAR OEM FACTORY RIMS.
8 THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE METAL WAS NOT
9 STRUCTURALLY SOUND AND THERE WERE CRACKS IN THE
REAR PASSENGER SIDE WHEEL. THE FAILURE LED TO LOW
10 TIRE PRESSURE. THE DEALER (GEORGE MATICK
11 CHEVROLET, 14001 TELEGRAPH RD, REDFORD CHARTER
TWP, MI 48239, (313) 531-7100) REPLACED THE OEM
12 FACTORY RIM. THE DEALER ALSO MENTIONED THAT THEY
13 RECEIVED SEVERAL COMPLAINTS FOR THE SAME MODEL,
BUT VARIOUS YEARS, CONCERNING THE OEM REAR RIMS
14 CRACKING AND THE LOW TIRE PRESSURE. THE
15 MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE
FAILURE MILEAGE WAS NOT AVAILABLE. *TT *TR
16
17 p. DATE OF INCIDENT: November 1, 2018
DATE COMPLAINT FILED: November 2, 2018
19 SUMMARY: 2017-2019 CORVETTE GRAND SPORT HAS A
HIGH NUMBER OF REPORT INSTANCES OF RIMS CRACKING
20 AND BENDING THAT FORUM MEMBERS FEEL IS NOT
21 NORMAL, NOT DUE TO HITTING POTHOLES OR ANYTHING.
I HAD NEVER HIT ANY POTHOLES OR ANYTHING HARD,
22 AND WHILE HAVING MY TIRES CHANGED, THE SHOP
23 SHOWS ME A CRACK IN THE RIM. ON THE BLOG SITE
"CORVETTE FORUM", THERE'S NUMEROUS PEOPLE AND
24 PICTURES OF PEOPLE SHOWING THEIR CRACKED OR BENT
25 RIMS. GM IS TELLING PEOPLE THIS IS NORMAL WEAR AND
TEAR AND NOT DEALING WITH IT. THIS IS NOT NORMAL.
26 SEVERAL PEOPLE HAVE REPORTED MULTIPLE TIRES BENT
27 OR CRACKED. PLEASE INVESTIGATE. I'M SURE GM DOES
NOT HAVE ACCURATE DATA, PEOPLE MOST PEOPLE
28
Page 18
1 REPORT THE DEALER TURNS THEIR CLAIM AWAY AS NOT

BEING COVERED, SO IT'S NOT GETTING FULLY REPORTED.
2 THIS APPEARS TO BE A PROBLEM ONLY WITH THE GRAND
3 SPORT MODEL.
4 q. DATE OF INCIDENT: December 20, 2018

5 DATE COMPLAINT FILED: December 21, 2018
6 SUMMARY: I HAD A SLOW LEAK IN A REAR TIRE ON A Z06
7 WHEEL. THE TIRE SHOP FIXED THE LEAK AND INFORMED
ME THE WHEEL WAS BENT. THE CAR WAS BOUGHT NEW
8 AND HAS ONLY 2000 MILES ON THE ODO. I CANNOT
9 RECALL HITTING A LARGE POTHOLE OR RUNNING OVER
ANYTHING
10
11 r. DATE OF INCIDENT: January 2, 2019
DATE COMPLAINT FILED: February 13, 2019
13 SUMMARY: WE HAVE HAD TO REPAIR THEN REPLACE 2
REAR CRACKED RIMS IN THE 1.5 YEARS WE HAVE OWNED
14 THIS VEHICLE. THE FIRST ONE WAS 3 MONTHS AFTER
15 PURCHASING IT AND THE SECOND ONE WAS IN JANUARY
2019. AFTER NOTICING BOTH TIMES THAT FIRST THE LEFT
16 TIRE WAS LOSING AIR A HAIRLINE CRACK WAS NOTICED
17 ON THE INSIDE OF THE RIM. WE HAD IT REPAIRED AND IT
DID NOT LAST SO FOR SAFETY REASONS WE NEEDED TO
18 REPLACE IT. THE SAME THING HAPPENED WITH THE RIGHT
19 SIDE IN LATE 2018. IT WAS AGAIN SUGGESTED WE REPAIR
IT, THEN AGAIN THE REPAIR DID NOT HOLD AND WE
20 NEEDED TO REPLACE.
21
s. DATE OF INCIDENT: January 14, 2019
SUMMARY: 2 BENT WHEELS UNDER (BETTER THAN)
24 NORMAL DRIVING CONDITIONS ON MY 2017 CORVETTE
25 GRAND SPORT. GARAGE KEPT/COVERED. PRISTINE 2-
YEAR-OLD CAR WITH 7000 MILES. SERVICE DEPT ALERTED
26 ME TO THE BENDS DURING SCHEDULED MAINTENANCE
27 AND WHILE INVESTIGATING A PULSING PROBLEM IN THE
FRONT BRAKE ROTORS.
28
Page 19
1
THE VEHICLE IS HARDLY EVER DRIVEN, HAS NEVER SEEN
2 ROUGH ROADS/CITY STREETS/BAD WEATHER/ETC. THE
3 VEHICLE HAS NEVER BEEN "TRACKED" OR OTHERWISE
ABUSED. THIS IS A "SUMMER ONLY," WEEKEND VEHICLE
4 THAT HAS BEEN IMPECCABLY MAINTAINED.
5
THERE ARE NO VISIBLE SCUFFS/SCRAPES/BENDS/BULGES
6 OR OTHER DAMAGE TO THE TIRES OR WHEELS. NEVER HIT
7 ANY POTHOLE/ROAD HAZARD/DEBRIS, *EVER.*
8 BASED ON RECENT ONLINE RESEARCH AND INFORMATION

9 FROM THE SERVICE MANAGER, I'M NOW CONCERNED
THAT THESE WHEELS WILL TOTALLY CRACK OR
10 OTHERWISE DEFORM WHILE DRIVING. THIS IS AN
11 ACCIDENT WAITING TO HAPPEN.
12 AFTER OPENING A CASE (9-5012193448) AND OVER AN

13 HOUR ON THE PHONE, GM HAS DENIED A WARRANTY
CLAIM AND WILL NOT FURTHER DISCUSS/ESCALATE THIS
14 ISSUE. GM WOULD NOT PROVIDE A DESCRIPTION OR COPY
15 OF THE METHOD USED TO DETERMINE "DEFECT
VS.DAMAGE", OR A WRITTEN COPY OF THE EVALUATION
16 MADE BY THE REGIONAL WARRANTY REP.
17
GM REFUSES TO DISCLOSE ANY INFORMATION
18 REGARDING OTHER INSTANCES OF THIS PROBLEM, WILL
19 NOT REPLACE/REPAIR THE DEFECTIVE WHEELS, AND WILL
NOT PAY FOR A SUITABLE/COMPARABLE 3RD PARTY
20 REPLACEMENT.
21
I'VE ALSO READ ABOUT OTHER OWNERS HAVE THE SAME
22 ISSUES VIA THESE LINKS:
23
HTTPS://WWW.CARANDDRIVER.COM/REVIEWS/A23705281/
24 2017-CHEVROLET-CORVETTE-GRAND-SPORT-
25 RELIABILITY/
26 HTTPS://WWW.CORVETTEFORUM.COM/FORUMS/C7-
27 GENERAL-DISCUSSION/4161059-2018-GRAND-SPORT-
CRACKED-RIM.HTML
28
Page 20
1
HTTP://WWW.CARPROBLEMZOO.COM/CHEVROLET/CORVE
2 TTE/WHEEL-PROBLEMS.PHP
3
t. DATE OF INCIDENT: January 19, 2019
SUMMARY: THE WHEELS ON MY VEHICLE ARE CRACKED
6 ON THE REAR PASSENGER SIDE. I PICKED UP MY (NEW)
7 CAR FROM LAMARQUE AUTO DEALER IN NEW ORLEANS
AND DROVE HOME TO BEAUMONT. WHEN I GOT TO
8 BEAUMONT, THE LOW TIRE PRESSURE WARNING CAME
9 ON. SO TODAY (1-21-19) I TOOK CAR TO DISCOUNT TIRE
AND THEY FOUND THAT MY WHEEL IS CRACKED. I'
10 ASSUMING IT CRACKED WHILE DRIVING OVER 200 MILES
11 ON I-10 HEADED HOME.
12 u. DATE OF INCIDENT: January 27, 2019

13 DATE COMPLAINT FILED: February 20, 2019
14 SUMMARY: 2017 CORVETTE GRAND SPORT, PURCHASED IN
15 JUNE OF 2017, ONLY USED ON WEEKEND AND THE
CURRENT MILEAGE IS ONLY 930.
16
17 JUST NOTICED A VIBRATION IN THE FRONT END WHEN
TRAVEL ON HIGHWAY AT SPEED 55+.
18
19 BRING THE CAR TO THE DEALERSHIP FOR INSPECTION
AND THE SERVICE MANAGER INFORM ME ALL 4 WHEELS
20 HAS BEEN BEND AND NEED TO BE REPLACE.
21
FILE A CASE (9-5019078980) WITH GM CUSTOMER CARE
22 CENTER AND AFTER 1 WEEK, GM CENTER CALLED AND
23 TOLD ME THIS IS NOT COVER UNDER THE FACTORY
WARRANTY. VERY DISAPPOINT AND LOOSING TRUST IN
24 GM PRODUCT RELATED TO QUALITY, RELIABILITY AND
25 SAFETY CONCERN FOR THE CONSUMERS.
26 THIS PROBLEM WITH THE FACTORY WHEEL BENDING OR
27 CRACKING HAS BEEN REPORT AND LISTED IN SEVERAL
CORVETTE FORUM AND MOST ARE RELATED TO THE 2017-
28
Page 21
1 2019 GRAND SPORT MODEL.
2 HOPEFULLY THERE WILL BE AN INVESTIGATION OPEN

3 SOON TO PREVENT ANY FURTHER DAMAGE CAUSING
SERIOUS ACCIDENT SIMILAR TO THE AIR BAG PROBLEMS.
4
5 v. DATE OF INCIDENT: February 22, 2019
DATE COMPLAINT FILED: March 1, 2019
7 SUMMARY: ON OR ABOUT SEPTEMBER 11, 2018 I NOTICED
MY RIGHT FRONT TIRE WAS LOW ON AIR. I TOOK IT TO LES
8 SCHWAB TIRE AND THEY REPAIRED A LEAK FROM A
9 SCREW. A COUPLE OF DAYS LATER I NOTICED THE TIRE
WAS STILL GOING LOW I TOOK IT BACK AND THEY
10 INFORMED ME THAT IT HAD A CRACKED WHEEL. I
11 PURCHASED A NEW WHEEL FROM CHEVROLET AND HAD
LESS SCHWAB INSTALL IT FOR ME . I JUST RECENTLY
12 2/22/2019 PUT NEW TIRES ON THE CAR AND THE
13 DEALERSHIP NOTED THE BRAND NEW WHEEL I PUT ON
THE RIGHT REAR HAS CRACKS IN IT NOW AS WELL AS THE
14 LEFT REAR WHEEL WHICH IS LOSING AIR. THESE WHEELS
15 ARE EXPENSIVE I BELIEVE THEY RETAIL FOR $800 EACH AT
THE DEALER AND ARE DEFECTIVE AND DANGEROUS.
16 MOST OF OUR MILES ARE HIGHWAY MILES DRIVING
17 BETWEEN SAN JOSE CALIFORNIA AND ELK GROVE
CALIFORNIA BETWEEN MY OFFICES.
18
19 w. DATE OF INCIDENT: March 1, 2019
DATE COMPLAINT FILED: March 2, 2019
21 SUMMARY: FACTORY WHEELS CRACKED FROM NORMAL
DRIVING ON THE INNER LIP, TIRE MECHANIC ADVISED HE'S
22 SEEN MANY OF THESE ON THE Z06 WHEELS AND IT'S A
23 KNOWN PROBLEM HOWEVER GM WON'T COVER THE
DEFECTIVE WHEELS UNDER WARRANTY. THE CRACKED
24 WHEEL CAUSES A SLOW LEAK END EVENTUALLY CAN
25 BREAK IF GONE UNDETECTED RESULTING IN A LOSS OF
CONTROL OF THE VEHICLE.
26
27 x. DATE OF INCIDENT: March 18, 2019
DATE COMPLAINT FILED: April 10, 2019
28
Page 22

SUMMARY: CORVETTE REAR WHEEL WAS LOSING AIR SO
2 INSPECTED TIRES AND FOUND NO HOLES. WENT TO
3 CORVETTE FORUM TO LEARN THIS IS A KNOWN PROBLEM
ON Z06 AND GRAND SPORTS. SEEMS GM HAS A PROBLEM
4 WITH CRACKING. MY CRACK IS EXACTLY WHAT THE
5 FORUM MEMBERS HAVE. HAIRLINE CRACK IN THE RIM ON
THE NON-HUB SIDE. THIS IS A SAFETY ISSUE AS THE RIM
6 COULD COME APART AT SPEED AND CAUSE A SERIOUS
7 ACCIDENT. I HAVE NO OTHER DAMAGE TO THE WHEEL
AND HAVE NOT HAD ANY CURB DAMAGE. I BABY THIS
8 CAR AND THE SAME CRACK THAT MANY OTHERS HAVE
9 EXPERIENCED APPEAR.
10 Customer Complaints on Third-Party Websites

11 50. Consumers similarly complained about the defect on various online
12 forums. Below are some examples.
13
a. August 31, 2017: There have been a lot of reports of stock wheels
14 bending on Grand Sports and Z06s here lately, and I've had one of my
15 own front wheels bend on a brand new Grand Sport. In my situation,
there was absolutely no damage, scratch or even a mark anywhere -
16 the wheel just went out of round with less than 1000 miles on the car.
17
Why is this happening, is Chevy aware of this happening on more
18 than an isolated occurrence, and what is being done to remedy the
19 situation? Will you improve the strength of these Chinese-made
wheels and offer a recall/replacement? (Available at
20 https://www.corvetteforum.com/forums/ask-tadge/4036656-asked-
21 grand-sport-z06-wheels-bending.html)
22 b. September 13, 2017: I have 3 bent and one broken wheel and have
23 never hit anything hard enough to do this kind of damage. Dealer did
not diagnose the problem however did tell me to stop driving in sport
24 mode. (Id.)
25
c. September 20, 2017: In for a response. We have had a few
26 customers and a trade-in (all C7 Z's) with 3 or 4 bent wheels per car.
27 Thankfully we have sourced a company that will repair the wheels,
much cheaper than replacing. This is clearly a defect if this is as
28
Page 23
1 common as it seems. (Id.)
2
d. October 20, 2017: I have several [bent] rims, probably seven, I’ll
3 have to count all of them. They are all in the rear and none of them
4 were from hitting anything that is worse than any other expansion
joint or imperfection in the road. I’m very careful not to hit potholes.
5 The roads I travel on are actually in very good shape. (available at
6 https://www.corvetteforum.com/forums/c7-general-
discussion/4056471-have-you-had-a-wheel-
7 bend.html#post1595799836)
8
e. October 20, 2017: Five bent wheels within the first 2,700 miles.
9 Currently have 6,700 miles on my C7Z. All were bent on public
10 streets. The first four were all bent at the same time from a pothole
that was kind of hidden in the shadows and I tried to straddle at
11
about 35 mph, it didn't work. The fifth was a very minor bump
12 coming off a freeway bridge at 55 mph. Couldn't feel any vibration
until 45+ mph with any of these. (Id.)
13
14 f. October 22, 2017: Fast forward several months, I return to the same
dealership regarding the vibration issue which had gotten
15
progressively worse. At that time, the dealership informed me that all
16 four rims were bent. I’ve since heard that driving in Sport mode
could result in bent wheels. Available at (Id.)
17
18 g. May 8, 2018: Yes...I have just been informed by my dealer that My
C7 Z06 has two bent wheels.
19
They caused the car to have a rythmic vibration. Only 3000 miles and
20 no evidence of damage and I have no recollection of any road hazards
hit. I noticed the vibration right after taking a very hard off ramp ! (Id.)
21
22 h. June 20, 2018: 2 front wheels bent on a 2017 GS. (Id.)
23
i. June 20, 2018: I took my 2017 GS in today for a vibration. They say
24 all four wheels are bent! (Id.)
25
j. June 24, 2018: I had a shimmy in the steering wheel on my 2017 GS.
26 It seems I had 3 bent wheels and a cracked wheel. Insurance company
27 purchased through the dealer is being a real pain. They want to give
me a $650 wheel for the one that was cracked even though the GM
28
Page 24
1 price is over $900 for the Chrome clad. The other 3 have been
straightened and are perfect. Now to fight for a GM wheel and an
2 alignment…. (Id.)
3
k. June 27, 2018: The verdict is in, they tell me that 3 of the wheels are
4 BENT?!? I haven't even hit as much as a pothole and 3 of the 4 wheels
5 are bent?!?! WTF?!?!
6 The LR wheel and both Right (Front and Rear) are bent according to
7 the dealer. They said that one of the right ones, I'm so pissed I don't
even remember which one they told me, was so bent that you didn't
8 have to spin it to see it. And OF COURSE they are not covered under
9 warranty. (Id.)
10 l. June 28, 2018: 2018 GS had all 4 wheels bent and a cracked one also,
11 I believe from potholes at highway speeds. Drove it from Maryland to
Colorado. Put new Z06 style wheels on and waiting for an answer
12 from the T&W insurance. Couldn’t wait for them to make a decision
13 and not drive my car. Now it rides fantastic. (Id.)
14 m. October 11, 2018: I have a 2017 GrandSport Corvette, 10K miles.

15 Purchased 10/20/17. I have bent a total of 6 rims. First 2 rims were
bent in May. All 4 rims were bent in June.
16 My insurance replaced the first 2 bent rims with new ones. I hit a small
17 pothole on the highway. I was shock that the rims bent so easy. The
next month I bent all 4 rims, paid $700 to get the 4 bent rims
18 straighten, trying to save money. The 4 rims later kept re-bending so
19 I lost my money. I ended up just purchasing forged rims from Cray. I
have owned 3 corvettes; I have never bent rims until I purchased this
20 car. Corvette should be ashamed of themselves putting cheap rims on
21 a car that cost this much money. All the C7 (GS, Z06) owners should
get together to file a case action suit against them. That is the only way
22 to get someone to listen. (Id.)
23
n. November 16, 2018: Three bent GS wheels. Don't use Sport mag ride
24 setting anymore. One wheel straightened and bent again. Dealer
25 (Penske) wouldn't cover it. Replacement wheel from Midwest $ 485 +
shipping each. These wheels are noodles! (Id.)
26
27 o. November 16, 2018: My 4 bent rims had no tire damage, all rims were
bent on inside bead, no rim damage other than being egg shaped, no
28
Page 25
1 tire or rim damage tells me the rims are not up to what roads in the
USA are like. (Id.)
2
3 p. November 16, 2018: Bought my 2016 Z with 30K miles and a cracked
rear wheel was found at inspection. (Id.)
4
5 q. November 26, 2018: Left Rear, Right Front, and Right Rear, on a
Grand Sport Collector Edition. (Id.)
6
7 51. GM had superior and exclusive knowledge of the Rim Defect and
8 knew or should have known that the defect was not known or reasonably
9 discoverable by Plaintiff and Class Members before they purchased or leased the
10 Class Vehicles.
11 52. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that
12 before Plaintiff purchased his respective Class Vehicles, and since 2015, GM
13 knew about the Rim Defect through sources not available to consumers,
14 including pre-release testing data, early consumer complaints to GM and its
15 dealers, testing conducted in response to those complaints, high failure rates and
16 replacement part sales data, and other aggregate data from GM dealers about the
17 problem.
18 53. GM is experienced in the design and manufacture of consumer
19 vehicles. As an experienced manufacturer, GM conducts tests, including pre-sale
20 durability testing, on incoming components, including the wheels, to verify the
21 parts are free from defect and align with GM’s specifications.6 Thus, GM knew
22 or should have known that the subject wheels were defective and prone to put
23 drivers in a dangerous position due to the inherent risk of the defect.
24 54. Additionally, GM should have learned of this widespread defect
25 6
Akweli Parker, How Car Testing Works, HOWSTUFFWORKS.COM,
26 http://auto.howstuffworks.com/car-driving-safety/safety-regulatory-devices/car-
testing.htm (“The idea behind car testing is that it allows manufactures to work out
27 all the kinks and potential problems of a model before it goes into full
production.”) (last viewed September 11, 2017).
28
Page 26
1 from the sheer number of reports received from dealerships and from customer
2 complaints directly to GM. GM’s customer relations department collects and
3 analyzes field data including, but not limited to, repair requests made at
4 dealerships, technical reports prepared by engineers who have reviewed vehicles
5 for which warranty coverage is being requested, parts sales reports, and warranty
6 claims data.
7 55. Defendant’s warranty department similarly analyzes and collects
8 data submitted by its dealerships in order to identify trends in its vehicles. It is
9 Defendant’s policy that when a repair is made under warranty the dealership
10 must provide GM with detailed documentation of the problem and the fix
11 employed to correct it. Dealerships have an incentive to provide detailed
12 information to GM, because they will not be reimbursed for any repairs unless
13 the justification is sufficiently detailed.
14 56. The existence of the Rim Defect is a material fact that a reasonable
15 consumer would consider when deciding whether to purchase or lease a Class
16 Vehicle. Had Plaintiff and other Class Members known of the Rim Defect, they
17 would have paid less for the Class Vehicles or would not have purchased or
18 leased them.
19 57. Reasonable consumers, like Plaintiff, reasonably expect that a
20 vehicle’s wheels are safe, will function in a manner that will not pose a safety
21 risk, and are free of defects. Plaintiff and Class Members further reasonably
22 expect that GM will not sell or lease vehicles with known safety defects, such as
23 the Rim Defect, and will disclose any such defects to its consumers when it
24 learns of them. They did not expect GM to fail to disclose the Rim Defect to
25 them and to continually deny it.
26 GM Has Actively Concealed the Rim Defect
27 58. Despite its knowledge of the Rim Defect in the Class Vehicles, GM
28
Page 27
1 actively concealed the existence and nature of the defect from Plaintiff and Class
2 Members. Specifically, GM failed to disclose or actively concealed at and after
3 the time of purchase, lease, or repair:
4 (a) any and all known material defects or material nonconformity
5 of the Class Vehicles, including the defects pertaining to the
6 wheels;
7 (b) that the Class Vehicles, including the wheels, were not in
8 good in working order, were defective, and were not fit for
9 their intended purposes; and
10 (c) that the Class Vehicles and the wheels were defective, despite
11 the fact that GM learned of such defects as early as 2015.
12 59. As discussed above, GM monitors its customers’ discussions on
13 online forums such as www.corvetteforum.com, and actively concealed the
14 defect but by denying that there had been a “rash” of wheel failures, denying the
15 existence of a defect, and blaming the customers for the problems.
16 60. When consumers present their Class Vehicles to an authorized GM
17 dealer for rim repairs or replacements, GM refuses to honor the 3-year, 36,000-
18 mile warranty, telling the customers that the rim failures are the customers’ fault.
19 61. Accordingly, despite GM’s knowledge of the Rim Defect, GM has
20 caused Class Members to expend money at its dealerships to diagnose, repair or
21 replace the Class Vehicles’ rims.
22 CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
23 62. Plaintiff brings this lawsuit as a class action on behalf of himself
24 and all others similarly situated as members of the proposed Class pursuant to
25 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3). This action satisfies the
26 numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy, predominance, and superiority
27 requirements of those provisions.
28
Page 28
1 63. The Class and Sub-Class are defined as:

2
3
Class: All individuals in the United States who
4 purchased or leased any 2015 to present Chevrolet
Corvette Z06 or 2017 to present Chevrolet Corvette
5 Grand Sport vehicle.
6 California Sub-Class: All members of the Class who
reside in the State of California.
7
CLRA Sub-Class: All members of the California Sub-
8 Class who are “consumers” within the meaning of
California Civil Code § 1761(d).
9
Implied Warranty Sub-Class: All members of the
10 Class who purchased or leased their vehicles in the State
of California.
11
12 64. Excluded from the Class and Sub-Classes are: (1) Defendant, any
13 entity or division in which Defendant has a controlling interest, and their legal
14 representatives, officers, directors, assigns, and successors; (2) the Judge to
15 whom this case is assigned and the Judge’s staff; (3) any Judge sitting in the
16 presiding state and/or federal court system who may hear an appeal of any
17 judgment entered; and (4) those persons who have suffered personal injuries as a
18 result of the facts alleged herein. Plaintiff reserves the right to amend the Class
19 and Sub-Class definitions if discovery and further investigation reveal that the
20 Class and Sub-Class should be expanded or otherwise modified.
21 65. Numerosity: Although the exact number of Class Members is
22 uncertain and can only be ascertained through appropriate discovery, the number
23 is great enough such that joinder is impracticable. The disposition of the claims
24 of these Class Members in a single action will provide substantial benefits to all
25 parties and to the Court. The Class Members are readily identifiable from
26 information and records in Defendant’s possession, custody, or control, as well
27 as from records kept by the Department of Motor Vehicles.
28
Page 29
1 66. Typicality: Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the Class in
2 that Plaintiff, like all Class Members, purchased or leased a Class Vehicle
3 designed, manufactured, and distributed by GM. The representative Plaintiff, like
4 all Class Members, has been damaged by Defendant’s misconduct in that they
5 have incurred or will incur the cost of repairing or replacing the defective
6 wheels. Furthermore, the factual bases of GM’s misconduct are common to all
7 Class Members and represent a common thread resulting in injury to the Class.
8 67. Commonality: There are numerous questions of law and fact
9 common to Plaintiff and the Class that predominate over any question affecting
10 Class Members individually. These common legal and factual issues include the
11 following:
12 (a) Whether Class Vehicles suffer from defects relating to the
13 wheels;
14 (b) Whether the defects relating to the wheels constitute an
15 unreasonable safety risk;
16 (c) Whether Defendant knows about the defects pertaining to the
17 wheels and, if so, how long Defendant has known of the
18 defect;
19 (d) Whether the defective nature of the wheels constitutes a
20 material fact;
21 (e) Whether Defendant has a duty to disclose the defective nature
22 of the wheels to Plaintiff and Class Members;
23 (f) Whether Plaintiff and the other Class Members are entitled to
24 equitable relief, including a preliminary and/or permanent
25 injunction;
26 (g) Whether Defendant knew or reasonably should have known of
27 the defects pertaining to the wheels before it sold and leased
28
Page 30
1 Class Vehicles to Class Members;

2 (h) Whether Defendant should be declared financially responsible
3 for notifying the Class Members of problems with the Class
4 Vehicles and for the costs and expenses of repairing and
5 replacing the defective wheels;
6 (i) Whether Defendant is obligated to inform Class Members of
7 their right to seek reimbursement for having paid to diagnose,
8 repair, or replace their defective wheels;
9 (j) Whether Defendant breached the implied warranty of
10 merchantability pursuant to the Magnuson-Moss Warranty
11 Act;
12 (k) Whether Defendant breached the implied warranty of
13 merchantability pursuant to the Song-Beverly Act;
14 (l) Whether Defendant breached its express warranties under
15 UCC section 2301; and
16 (m) Whether Defendant breached written warranties pursuant to
17 the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.
18 68. Adequate Representation: Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect
19 the interests of the Class Members. Plaintiff have retained attorneys experienced
20 in the prosecution of class actions, including consumer and product defect class
21 actions, and he intends to prosecute this action vigorously.
22 69. Predominance and Superiority: Plaintiff and Class Members have all
23 suffered and will continue to suffer harm and damages as a result of Defendant’s
24 unlawful and wrongful conduct. A class action is superior to other available
25 methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy. Absent a class
26 action, most Class Members would likely find the cost of litigating their claims
27 prohibitively high and would therefore have no effective remedy. Because of the
28
Page 31
1 relatively small size of the individual Class Members’ claims, it is likely that
2 only a few Class Members could afford to seek legal redress for Defendant’s
3 misconduct. Absent a class action, Class Members will continue to incur
4 damages, and Defendant’s misconduct will continue without remedy or relief.
5 Class treatment of common questions of law and fact would also be a superior
6 method to multiple individual actions or piecemeal litigation in that it will
7 conserve the resources of the courts and the litigants and promote consistency
8 and efficiency of adjudication.
9 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
10 (Violation of California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act,
11 California Civil Code § 1750, et seq.)
12 70. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations contained in the
13 preceding paragraphs of this Complaint.
14 71. Plaintiff brings this cause of action on behalf of himself and the
15 CLRA Sub-Class.
16 72. Defendant is a “person” as defined by California Civil Code
17 § 1761(c).
18 73. Plaintiff and CLRA Sub-class Members are “consumers” within the
19 meaning of California Civil Code § 1761(d) because they purchased their Class
20 Vehicles primarily for personal, family, or household use.
21 74. By failing to disclose and concealing the defective nature of the
22 wheels from Plaintiff and prospective Class Members, Defendant violated
23 California Civil Code § 1770(a), as it represented that the Class Vehicles and
24 their wheels had characteristics and benefits that they do not have and
25 represented that the Class Vehicles and their wheels were of a particular
26 standard, quality, or grade when they were of another. See Cal. Civ. Code §§
27 1770(a)(5) & (7).
28
Page 32
1 75. Defendant’s unfair and deceptive acts or practices occurred

2 repeatedly in Defendant’s trade or business, were capable of deceiving a
3 substantial portion of the purchasing public, and imposed a serious safety risk on
4 the public.
5 76. Defendant knew that the Class Vehicles and their wheels suffered
6 from an inherent defect, were defectively designed, and were not suitable for
7 their intended use.
8 77. Because of their reliance on Defendant’s omissions, owners and/or
9 lessees of the Class Vehicles, including Plaintiff, suffered an ascertainable loss
10 of money, property, and/or value of their Class Vehicles. Additionally, because
11 of the Rim Defect, Plaintiff and Class Members were harmed and suffered actual
12 damages in that the Class Vehicles’ wheels are substantially certain to fail before
13 their expected useful life has run.
14 78. Defendant was under a duty to Plaintiff and Class Members to
15 disclose the defective nature of the wheels and/or the associated repair costs
16 because:
17 (a) Defendant was in a superior position to know the true state of
18 facts about the safety defect in the Class Vehicles’ wheels;
19 (b) Plaintiff and Class Members could not reasonably have been
20 expected to learn or discover that their wheels had a
21 dangerous safety defect until it manifested; and
22 (c) Defendant knew that Plaintiff and Class Members could not
23 reasonably have been expected to learn of or discover the
24 safety defect.
25 79. In failing to disclose the defective nature of wheels, Defendant
26 knowingly and intentionally concealed material facts and breached its duty not to
27 do so.
28
Page 33
1 80. The facts Defendant concealed from or failed to disclose to Plaintiff

2 and Class Members are material in that a reasonable consumer would have
3 considered them to be important in deciding whether to purchase or lease the
4 Class Vehicles or pay less. Had Plaintiff and Class Members known that the
5 Class Vehicles’ wheels were defective, they would not have purchased or leased
6 the Class Vehicles or would have paid less for them.
7 81. Plaintiff and Class Members are reasonable consumers who do not
8 expect the wheels installed in their vehicles to exhibit problems such as the Rim
9 Defect. This is the reasonable and objective consumer expectation relating to a
10 vehicle’s wheels.
11 82. Because of Defendant’s conduct, Plaintiff and Class Members were
12 harmed and suffered actual damages in that, on information and belief, the Class
13 Vehicles experienced and will continue to experience problems such as the Rim
14 Defect.
15 83. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s unfair or deceptive
16 acts or practices, Plaintiff and Class Members suffered and will continue to
17 suffer actual damages.
18 84. Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to equitable relief.
19 85. Plaintiff provided Defendant with notice of its violations of the
20 CLRA pursuant to California Civil Code § 1782(a). If Defendant fails to provide
21 appropriate relief for its violations of the CLRA within 30 days, Plaintiff will
22 seek monetary, compensatory, and punitive damages.
23 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
24 (Violation of California Business & Professions Code § 17200, et seq.)
28
Page 34
1 California Sub-Class.
2 88. Because of their reliance on Defendant’s omissions, owners and/or
3 lessees of the Class Vehicles, including Plaintiff, suffered an ascertainable loss
4 of money, property, and/or value of their Class Vehicles. Additionally, because
5 of the Rim Defect, Plaintiff and Class Members were harmed and suffered actual
8 89. California Business & Professions Code § 17200 prohibits acts of
9 “unfair competition,” including any “unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act
10 or practice” and “unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising.”
11 90. Plaintiff and Class Members are reasonable consumers who do not
12 expect their wheels to warp and crack.
13 91. Defendant knew the Class Vehicles and their wheels were
14 defectively designed or manufactured, would fail prematurely, and were not
15 suitable for their intended use.
16 92. In failing to disclose the Rim Defect, Defendant has knowingly and
17 intentionally concealed material facts and breached its duty not to do so.
18 93. Defendant was under a duty to Plaintiff and Class Members to
19 disclose the defective nature of the Class Vehicles and their wheels because:
20 (a) Defendant was in a superior position to know the true state of
21 facts about the safety defect in the Class Vehicles’ wheels;
22 and
23 (b) Defendant actively concealed the defective nature of the Class
24 Vehicles and their wheels from Plaintiff and the Class.
25 94. The facts Defendant concealed from or failed to disclose to Plaintiff
26 and Class Members are material in that a reasonable person would have
27 considered them to be important in deciding whether to purchase or lease Class
28
Page 35
1 Vehicles. Had they known of the Rim Defect, Plaintiff and the other Class
2 Members would have paid less for Class Vehicles equipped with the subject
3 wheels or would not have purchased or leased them at all.
4 95. Defendant continued to conceal the defective nature of the Class
5 Vehicles and their wheels even after Class Members began to report problems.
6 96. Defendant’s conduct was and is likely to deceive consumers.
7 97. Defendant’s acts, conduct, and practices were unlawful, in that they
8 constituted:
9 (a) Violations of California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act;
10 (b) Violations of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act;
11 (c) Violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act; and
12 (d) Breach of Express Warranty under California Commercial
13 Code section 2313.
14 98. By its conduct, Defendant has engaged in unfair competition and
15 unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business practices.
16 99. Defendant’s unfair or deceptive acts or practices occurred
17 repeatedly in Defendant’s trade or business and were capable of deceiving a
18 substantial portion of the purchasing public.
19 100. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s unfair and deceptive
20 practices, Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered and will continue to suffer
21 actual damages.
22 101. Defendant has been unjustly enriched and should be required to
23 make restitution to Plaintiff and the Class pursuant to §§ 17203 and 17204 of the
24 Business & Professions Code.
25
26
27
28
Page 36
1 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

2 (Breach of Implied Warranty Pursuant to Song-Beverly
3 Consumer Warranty Act, California Civil Code §§ 1792 and 1791.1, et seq.)
6 103. Plaintiff brings this cause of action against Defendant on behalf of
7 himself and the Implied Warranty Sub-Class.
8 104. Defendant was at all relevant times the manufacturer, distributor,
9 warrantor, and/or seller of the Class Vehicles. Defendant knew or had reason to
10 know of the specific use for which the Class Vehicles were purchased or leased.
11 105. Defendant provided Plaintiff and Class Members with an implied
12 warranty that the Class Vehicles and their components and parts are
13 merchantable and fit for the ordinary purposes for which they were sold.
14 However, the Class Vehicles are not fit for their ordinary purpose of providing
15 reasonably reliable and safe transportation because, inter alia, the Class Vehicles
16 and their wheels suffered from an inherent defect at the time of sale and
17 thereafter and are not fit for their particular purpose of providing safe and
18 reliable transportation.
19 106. Defendant impliedly warranted that the Class Vehicles were of
20 merchantable quality and fit for their intended use. This implied warranty
21 included, among other things: (i) a warranty that the Class Vehicles and their
22 wheels, which were manufactured, supplied, distributed, and/or sold by GM,
23 would provide safe and reliable transportation; and (ii) a warranty that the Class
24 Vehicles and their wheels would be fit for their intended use.
25 107. Contrary to the applicable implied warranties, the Class Vehicles
26 and their wheels at the time of sale and thereafter were not fit for their ordinary
27 and intended purpose of providing Plaintiff and Class Members with reliable,
28
Page 37
1 durable, and safe transportation. Instead, the Class Vehicles are defective,
2 including the defective wheels.
3 108. The alleged Rim Defect is inherent and was present in each Class
4 Vehicle at the time of sale.
5 109. Because of Defendant’s breach of the applicable implied warranties,
6 owners and/or lessees of the Class Vehicles suffered an ascertainable loss of
7 money, property, and/or value of their Class Vehicles. Additionally, because of
8 the Rim Defect, Plaintiff and Class Members were harmed and suffered actual
11 110. Defendant’s actions, as complained of herein, breached the implied
12 warranty that the Class Vehicles were of merchantable quality and fit for such
13 use in violation of California Civil Code §§ 1792 and 1791.1.
14 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
15 (For Breach of Express Warranty)
18 112. Plaintiff brings this cause of action on behalf of himself and on
19 behalf of the Class, or, Alternatively, the California Sub-class, against
20 Defendant.
21 113. Defendant provided all purchasers and lessees of the Class Vehicles
22 with an express warranty described infra, which became a material part of the
23 bargain. Accordingly, Defendant’s express warranty is an express warranty
24 under California law.
25 114. The wheels were manufactured and/or installed in the Class
26 Vehicles by Defendant and are covered by the express warranty.
27 115. In a section entitled “What is Covered,” Defendant’s express
28
Page 38
1 warranty provides in relevant part that “The warranty covers repairs to correct
2 any vehicle defect, not slight noise, vibrations, or other normal characteristics of
3 the vehicle due to materials or workmanship occurring during the warranty
4 period.” The warranty further provides that “Warranty repairs, including,
5 including towing, parts, and labor, will be made at no charge” and “[t]o obtain
6 warranty repairs, take the vehicle to a Chevrolet dealer facility within the
7 warranty period and request the needed repairs.”
8 116. According to GM, the “Bumper-to-Bumper (Includes Tires)
9 Coverage is for the first 3 years or 36,000 miles, whichever comes first.”
10 117. Defendant breached the express warranties by selling and leasing
11 Class Vehicles with wheels that were defective, requiring repair or replacement
12 within the warranty period, and refusing to honor the express warranty by
13 repairing or replacing, free of charge, the wheels. In addition, when Defendant
14 did agree to pay a portion of the costs, Defendant nevertheless breached the
15 express warranty by simply replacing Plaintiff’s and Class Members’ defective
16 wheels with similarly defective wheels, thus failing to “repair” the defect.
17 118. Plaintiff was not required to notify GM of the breach or was not
18 required to do so because affording GM a reasonable opportunity to cure its
19 breach of written warranty would have been futile. Defendant was also on notice
20 of the defect from complaints and service requests it received from Class
21 Members, from repairs and/or replacements of the wheels, and from other
22 internal sources.
23 119. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendant’s breach, Plaintiff and
24 the other Class Members have suffered, and continue to suffer, damages,
25 including economic damages at the point of sale or lease. Additionally, Plaintiff
26 and the other Class Members have incurred or will incur economic damages at
27 the point of repair in the form of the cost of repair.
28
Page 39
1 120. Plaintiff and the other Class Members are entitled to legal and
2 equitable relief against Defendant, including actual damages, consequential
3 damages, specific performance, attorneys’ fees, costs of suit, and other relief as
4 appropriate.
5 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
6 (Breach of Written Warranty under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act,
7 15 U.S.C. § 2303 et seq.)
11 Class against Defendant.
12 123. The Class Vehicles are a “consumer product” within the meaning of
13 the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2301(1).
14 124. Plaintiff and Class Members are “consumers” within the meaning of
16 125. Defendant is a “supplier” and “warrantor” within the meaning of the
17 Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2301(4)-(5).
18 126. Defendant’s express warranty is a “written warranty” within the
19 meaning of 15 U.S.C. § 2301(6).
20 127. As set forth supra and incorporated by reference, Defendant
21 extended a 36-month, 36,000 mile Bumper-to-Bumper warranty.
22 128. Defendant breached the express warranties by selling and leasing
23 Class Vehicles with wheels that were defective, requiring repair or replacement
24 within the warranty period, and refusing to honor the express warranty by
25 repairing or replacing, free of charge, the wheels. In addition, when Defendant
26 did agree to pay a portion of the costs, Defendant nevertheless breached the
27 express warranty by simply replacing Plaintiff’s and Class Members’ defective
28
Page 40
1 wheels with similarly defective wheels, thus failing to “repair” the defect.
2 129. Defendant’s breach of the express warranties has deprived the
3 Plaintiff and Class members of the benefit of their bargain.
4 130. Defendant’s breach of express warranties has deprived Plaintiff and
5 Class Members of the benefit of their bargain.
6 131. The amount in controversy of Plaintiff’s individual claims meets or
7 exceeds the sum or value of $25,000. In addition, the amount in controversy
8 meets or exceeds the sum or value of $50,000 (exclusive of interests and costs)
9 computed on the basis of all claims to be determined in this suit.
10 132. Defendant has been afforded a reasonable opportunity to cure its
11 breach, including when Plaintiff and Class Members brought their vehicles in for
12 diagnoses and repair of the wheels.
13 133. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendant’s breach of written
14 warranties, Plaintiff and Class Members sustained and incurred damages and
15 other losses in an amount to be determined at trial. Defendant’s conduct
16 damaged Plaintiff and Class Members, who are entitled to recover actual
17 damages, consequential damages, specific performance, diminution in value,
18 costs, attorneys’ fees, and/or other relief as appropriate.
19 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
20 (Breach of Implied Warranty under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act,
21 15 U.S.C. § 2303 et seq.)
25 Class against Defendant.
26 136. The Class Vehicles are a “consumer product” within the meaning of
28
Page 41
1 137. Plaintiff and Class Members are “consumers” within the meaning of
3 138. Defendant is a “supplier” and “warrantor” within the meaning of the
4 Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2301(4)-(5).
5 139. GM impliedly warranted that the Class Vehicles were of
6 merchantable quality and fit for use. This implied warranty included, among
7 other things: (i) a warranty that the Class Vehicles and their wheels were
8 manufactured, supplied, distributed, and/or sold by GM would provide safe and
9 reliable transportation; and (ii) a warranty that the Class Vehicles and their
10 wheels would be fit for their intended use while the Class Vehicles were being
11 operated.
12 140. Contrary to the applicable implied warranties, the Class Vehicles
13 and their wheels at the time of sale and thereafter were not fit for their ordinary
14 and intended purpose of providing Plaintiff and Class Members with reliable,
15 durable, and safe transportation. Instead, the Class Vehicles are defective,
16 including the defective design of their wheels.
17 141. Defendant’s breach of implied warranties has deprived Plaintiff and
18 Class Members of the benefit of their bargain.
19 142. The amount in controversy of Plaintiff’s individual claims meets or
20 exceeds the sum or value of $25,000. In addition, the amount in controversy
21 meets or exceeds the sum or value of $50,000 (exclusive of interests and costs)
22 computed on the basis of all claims to be determined in this suit.
23 143. Defendant has been afforded a reasonable opportunity to cure its
24 breach, including when Plaintiff and Class Members brought their vehicles in for
25 diagnoses and repair of the wheels.
26 144. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendant’s breach of implied
27 warranties, Plaintiff and Class Members sustained and incurred damages and
28
Page 42
1 other losses in an amount to be determined at trial. Defendant’s conduct

2 damaged Plaintiff and Class Members, who are entitled to recover actual
3 damages, consequential damages, specific performance, diminution in value,
4 costs, attorneys’ fees, and/or other relief as appropriate.
5 145. Because of Defendant’s violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty
6 Act as alleged herein, Plaintiff and Class Members have incurred damages.
7 SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
8 (For Unjust Enrichment)
12 Class.
13 148. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s failure to disclose
14 known defects, Defendant has profited through the sale and lease of the Class
15 Vehicles. Although these vehicles are purchased through Defendant’s agents,
16 the money from the vehicle sales flows directly back to Defendant.
17 149. Additionally, as a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s failure
18 to disclose known defects in the Class Vehicles, Plaintiff and Class Members
19 have vehicles that require repeated, high-cost repairs that can and therefore have
20 conferred an unjust substantial benefit upon Defendant.
21 150. Defendant has been unjustly enriched due to the known defects in
22 the Class Vehicles through the use money paid that earned interest or otherwise
23 added to Defendant’s profits when said money should have remained with
24 Plaintiff and Class Members.
25 151. As a result of the Defendant’s unjust enrichment, Plaintiff and Class
26 Members have suffered damages.
27
28
Page 43
1 RELIEF REQUESTED
2 152. Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
3 request the Court to enter judgment against Defendant, as follows:
4 (a) An order certifying the proposed Class and Sub-Classes,
5 designating Plaintiff as named representative of the Class, and
6 designating the undersigned as Class Counsel;
7 (a) A declaration that Defendant is financially responsible for
8 notifying all Class Members about the defective nature of the
9 wheels, including the need for periodic maintenance;
10 (b) An order enjoining Defendant from further deceptive
11 distribution, sales, and lease practices with respect to Class
12 Vehicles; compelling Defendant to issue a voluntary recall for
13 the Class Vehicles pursuant to. 49 U.S.C. § 30118(a);
14 compelling Defendant to remove, repair, and/or replace the
15 Class Vehicles’ defective wheels with suitable alternative
16 product(s) that do not contain the defects alleged herein;
17 enjoining Defendant from selling the Class Vehicles with the
18 misleading information; and/or compelling Defendant to
19 reform its warranty, in a manner deemed to be appropriate by
20 the Court, to cover the injury alleged and to notify all Class
21 Members that such warranty has been reformed;
22 (c) A declaration requiring Defendant to comply with the various
23 provisions of the Song-Beverly Act alleged herein and to
24 make all the required disclosures;
25 (d) An award to Plaintiff and the Class for compensatory,
26 exemplary, and statutory damages, including interest, in an
27 amount to be proven at trial, except that currently, Plaintiff
28
Page 44
1 does not seek damages under his Consumers Legal Remedies

2 Act claim;
3 (e) Any and all remedies provided pursuant to the Song-Beverly
4 Act, including California Civil Code section 1794;
5 (f) Any and all remedies provided pursuant to the Magnuson-
6 Moss Warranty Act;
7 (g) A declaration that Defendant must disgorge, for the benefit of
8 the Class, all or part of the ill-gotten profits it received from
9 the sale or lease of its Class Vehicles or make full restitution
10 to Plaintiff and Class Members;
11 (h) An award of attorneys’ fees and costs, as allowed by law;
12 (i) An award of attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to California
13 Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5;
14 (j) An award of pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, as
15 provided by law;
16 (k) Leave to amend the Complaint to conform to the evidence
17 produced at trial; and
18 (l) Such other relief as may be appropriate under the
19 circumstances.
20 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
21 153. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38(b) and Central
22 District of California Local Rule 38-1, Plaintiff demands a trial by jury of all
23 issues in this action so triable.
24
25
26
27
28
Page 45
Dated: April 30, 2019 Respectfully submitted,

1
Capstone Law APC
2
3
By: /s/ Mark A. Ozzello
4 Mark A. Ozzello
Tarek H. Zohdy
5 Cody R. Padgett
Trisha K. Monesi
6
Attorneys for Plaintiff
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Page 46
EXHIBIT 1
1 Mark A. Ozzello (SBN 116595)

Mark.Ozzello@capstonelawyers.com
2 Tarek H. Zohdy (SBN 247775)
Tarek.Zohdy@capstonelawyers.com
3 Cody R. Padgett (SBN 275553)
Cody.Padgett@capstonelawyers.com
4 Trisha K. Monesi (SBN 303512)
Trisha.Monesi@capstonelawyers.com
5 Capstone Law APC
1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000
6 Los Angeles, California 90067
Telephone: (310) 556-4811
7 Facsimile: (310) 943-0396
8 Attorneys for Plaintiff Anthony Nardizzi
9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11
12 ANTHONY NARDIZZI, Case No.:

individually, and on behalf of a class
13 of similarly situated individuals,
DECLARATION OF ANTHONY
14 Plaintiff, NARDIZZI IN SUPPORT OF
VENUE FOR CLASS ACTION
15 v. COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO
CIVIL CODE SECTION 1780(d)
16 GENERAL MOTORS LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company,
17
Defendant.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DECL. OF ANTHONY NARDIZZI IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S SELECTION OF VENUE FOR TRIAL

1 DECLARATION OF ANTHONY NARDIZZI

2 I, Anthony Nardizzi, declare under penalty of perjury as follows:
3 1. I make this declaration based upon my personal knowledge except
4 as to those matters stated herein that are based upon information and belief, and
5 as to those matters I believe them to be true. I am over the age of eighteen, a
6 citizen of the State of California, and a Plaintiff in this action.
7 2. Pursuant to California Civil Code section 1780(d), this Declaration
8 is submitted in support of Plaintiff’s Selection of Venue for the Trial of
9 Plaintiff’s California Consumers Legal Remedies Act claim.
10 3. I am a resident of Valencia, California, in Los Angeles County. I
11 leased and service vehicle in Ventura County, and I keep my vehicle at my home
12 in Valencia.
13 4. Based on the facts set forth herein, the Central District of California
14 is a proper venue for the prosecution of my California Consumers Legal
15 Remedies Act claim because the vehicle that is the subject of this lawsuit is
16 situated here and a substantial portion of the events giving rise to my claims
17 occurred here. Further, Defendant conducts business in the Central District of
18 California.
19 5. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of California and
20 the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct.
21 Executed on April
____, 2019 in ________________,

California.
22
23
___________________________
24 Anthony Nardizzi
25
26
27
28
Page 1
DECL. OF ANTHONY NARDIZZI IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S SELECTION OF VENUE FOR TRIAL

Corvette Lawsuit

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Corvette Lawsuit

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Corvette Lawsuit

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is the lawsuit about?

What is the lawsuit about?

What is the alleged defect?

What is the alleged defect?

Case 2:19-cv-03665-CJC-AFM Document 1 Filed 04/30/19 Page 1 of 50 Page ID #:1

1 Mark A. Ozzello (SBN 116595)

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

1 1. Plaintiff Anthony Nardizzi (“Plaintiff”) brings this action for

1 and other retail outlets, thousands of Class Vehicles in California and

1 Highway Traffic Safety Administration (“NHTSA.”) Federal law requires

1 BENT AND COULD NOT BALANCE THE WHEELS PROPERLY.

12 b. DATE OF INCIDENT: August 19, 2017

1 THE FAILURES. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS

8 e. DATE OF INCIDENT: January 8, 2018

1 LOST AIR PRESSURE AFTER 6,800 MILES.

10 h. DATE OF INCIDENT: August 4, 2018

1 GRAND SPORT AND Z06 CORVETTES. THESE WHEELS WILL

1 THAN 5000 MILES ON HIS 2019 NEEDS TO BUY 4 WHEELS

4 j. DATE OF INCIDENT: August 25, 2018

1 WITH AN AFTERMARKET WHEEL COMPANY FOR

1 ESPECIALLY ON CARS WITH SUCH LOW MILEAGE.

10 m. DATE OF INCIDENT: October 17, 2018

1 SMALL POTHOLE ON THE INTERSTATE CAUSING CRACK IN

4 o. DATE OF INCIDENT: November 1, 2018

1 REPORT THE DEALER TURNS THEIR CLAIM AWAY AS NOT

4 q. DATE OF INCIDENT: December 20, 2018

8 BASED ON RECENT ONLINE RESEARCH AND INFORMATION

12 AFTER OPENING A CASE (9-5012193448) AND OVER AN

12 u. DATE OF INCIDENT: January 27, 2019

1 2019 GRAND SPORT MODEL.

2 HOPEFULLY THERE WILL BE AN INVESTIGATION OPEN

1 NHTSA/ODI ID: 11195307

10 Customer Complaints on Third-Party Websites

1 common as it seems. (Id.)

14 m. October 11, 2018: I have a 2017 GrandSport Corvette, 10K miles.

1 63. The Class and Sub-Class are defined as:

1 Class Vehicles to Class Members;

1 75. Defendant’s unfair and deceptive acts or practices occurred

1 80. The facts Defendant concealed from or failed to disclose to Plaintiff

1 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

1 other losses in an amount to be determined at trial. Defendant’s conduct

1 does not seek damages under his Consumers Legal Remedies

Dated: April 30, 2019 Respectfully submitted,

1 Mark A. Ozzello (SBN 116595)

12 ANTHONY NARDIZZI, Case No.:

DECL. OF ANTHONY NARDIZZI IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S SELECTION OF VENUE FOR TRIAL

1 DECLARATION OF ANTHONY NARDIZZI

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.