IMS Failure Class Action Suite

[sithot]

Panorama went to the 8.5 x 11 format this month. (apparently tired of being upstaged by Cavallino, The Star, Roundel and Early S Registry!) This is on page 103.

Go to the site for a detailed explanation.

Tom

[Mr9146]

You may be entitled to a settlement of $50 towards your $10,000 (and climbing) replacement engine.

"Larry H. Parker got me 3.1 million..."

[sithot]

I heard the engines nearly doubled after Porsche "knew" all cars were out of warranty.

Here's a read on economics and liability:

Consider, for example, the calculations of Ford Motor Company officials in the 1970s with respect to the likelihood that gas tanks in Ford Pinto automobiles would explode when struck from behind by objects moving faster than twenty miles an hour. Internal company documents concluded that the additional cost of making the gas tank safer at higher speeds would be greater than the cost resulting from the estimated 180 deaths and 180 serious burn injuries per year which might be avoided by making a safer gas tank. More precisely, Ford calculated the benefits from a safer tank as the avoidance of costs of $200,000 per death, $67,000 per injury, and $700 per vehicle. Based on the estimated number of deaths,
Injuries, and damaged cars and trucks, the beets came to $49.5 million per year. The costs, however, were $11 per vehicle. With estimated sales of 12.5 million vehicles, these came to a total of $137 million. As a result, Ford officials concluded that redesigning the gas tank was not economically justified, based on concern that higher prices would reduce sales.
As it happened, Ford was in compliance with federal safety standards at the time, not least because it had lobbied hard to prevent higher standards from being enacted. Even if Ford had been in violation of federal law, how- ever, that would have been irrelevant from a law and economics perspective. As long as the cost of obeying the law was greater than the cost of compliance, Ford was justified in con- tinuing to sell Pintos without any design changes.
The law and economics approach to tort law thus reveals two assumptions that are basic to an instrumental account of law. First, law has no intrinsic moral force, but is simply a cost that parties must take into account in deciding how to behave. We use law as an instrument for imposing costs in order to affect these decisions. Second, persons are instrumentally rational, weighing the costs and benefits associated with pursuing alternative goals. Law and economics seeks to make the law a more scientific instrument by relying on rational choice theory to predict how different legal rules will affect behavior.

[uptheorg]

Does anyone know how many deaths because of failed bearings?

[Type911]

Does anyone know how many deaths because of failed bearings?

Thousands if not more....

[Bummler]

Thousands if not more....

Most of the deaths occurred suddenly, directly in front of their Porsche dealer's cashier window.

Epidemiologists are studying each incident. Overwhelming evidence points to a sudden spasm and closure of the left anterior descending artery. Onset of chest pain was almost immediate following a review of dealer charges.

[sithot]

Nice. Probably closer to the truth than fiction.

[mrgreenjeans]

as a side note, several stories were floating about at Parade this year......of 996 and Boxster engines.

'catastrophic fail' in 2 separate incidents as the folks traveled to Traverse City.

Both occurred at speed and on the way to the event.......

so, wonder if the same number failed on the way back ? If so, this is perhaps a pretty high ratio on attendees with engine failure....... would be nice to know the statistics on these 986-996 failures.

[curtisaa]

The mitigating factor here should be the argument that Porsche failed, and knew they failed at their first water cooled engine. It's not like the technology wasn't there from their competition. The mixing issue from the leaking of the cracked heads was obvious from the beginning, yet they Porsche failed to react. Why?, most notably because if you look at their financial statement back in 2000 , they really couldn't indemnify their customers with new motors at the rate of failure. It is very fortunate for Porsche, "most" 911's were NOT daily drivers with Americans racking up 15,000 miles a year on them. This really would have been catastrophic for them .
And NO, this will NOT be a $50.00 per class settlement as one poster mentioned. Porsche :VW, should do the right thing, and fix any and all these cars and put his behind them. Right now , their credibility is at stake , and they can afford the repairs to make this go away . We will see !

[Mr9146]

The mitigating factor here should be the argument that Porsche failed, and knew they failed at their first water cooled engine. It's not like the technology wasn't there from their competition. The mixing issue from the leaking of the cracked heads was obvious from the beginning, yet they Porsche failed to react. Why?, most notably because if you look at their financial statement back in 2000 , they really couldn't indemnify their customers with new motors at the rate of failure. It is very fortunate for Porsche, "most" 911's were NOT daily drivers with Americans racking up 15,000 miles a year on them. This really would have been catastrophic for them .
And NO, this will NOT be a $50.00 per class settlement as one poster mentioned. Porsche :VW, should do the right thing, and fix any and all these cars and put his behind them. Right now , their credibility is at stake , and they can afford the repairs to make this go away . We will see !

Nope. Won't happen.

$50-500 a head is my guess at the payout.