Was just reading more of that 155-page "Settlement Agreement" and unearthed more tidbits:
10.) If more than 2% of Class Members "Opt-Out" of this Agreement, GM can withdraw from the Settlement - and that's the end of it! The three existing SCA's will live on, but the new one for the 2013's (which has VERY limited scope in terms of actual vehicles affected anyway), and which is being introduced in this Agreement, will be dropped.
GM's lawyers presumably put this language in there because their goal is to get *everybody* included (WHETHER THEY BENEFIT OR NOT) on this Agreement so the book on the "Oil Consumption Litigation" can be closed FOREVER. If too many people Opt-Out, that will leave a large number of owners free to sue GM individually - a litigation nightmare, and probably FAR more costly to GM in the long run.
I cannot stress the following statement more, though:
IF YOU RECEIVE A LETTER SAYING YOUR VEHICLE HAS BEEN INCLUDED IN THE SETTLEMENT, THAT DOES NOT MEAN YOU WILL GET ANY BENEFIT AT ALL FROM THE SETTLEMENT! YOU'LL STILL NEED TO JUMP THROUGH THE HOOPS WITH THE TERMS OF THE SCA's FOR YOUR MODEL YEAR, INCLUDING THE "CONSUMPTION TEST" (AGAIN), ETC. BEFORE YOU RECEIVE ANY RELIEF. AND IF YOU DON'T QUALIFY DUE TO THE TIME AND MILEAGE LIMITS OF YOUR SCA, THEN YOU NEED TO OPT-OUT (in writing) TO PRESERVE YOUR RIGHT TO BRING YOUR OWN ACTION IN COURT LATER ON.
DON'T LET THEM COUNT YOU IN THIS AGREEMENT IF YOU WON'T BENEFIT FROM IT!
Ideally, from GM's perspective - the "ultimate" scenario is they only pay the 13 Original Plaintiffs (the people who brought this Action), their $4500 each, plus the Class Counsel and Administrative fees ... and everybody else they pay NOTHING! Of course, realistically - that's not going to happen, but the closer to that, the better.
11.) It appears there is language in this Settlement that not only says (several times) that GM has admitted no wrongdoing or fault (etc.), but also that the Settlement cannot be used as Evidence in any other Litigation (or to Certify a Class ... which is apparently not a good thing for GM). But I really wonder, if this is in fact that case, how "iron-clad" this representation is. I mean - you can *say* you've done nothing wrong and are admitting to *nothing*, but if you're paying out millions of dollars in a legal Action, I can't see how that cannot be used as at least "supporting evidence" in a subsequent and separate litigation. Lawyers cite other cases all the time as examples of legal precedent.
MAYBE WHAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN IS A CLASS MEMBER NEEDS TO OBJECT TO THE USE OF THIS LANGUAGE IN THE SETTLEMENT, but keep in mind that if you Opt-Out first, you lose your right to OBJECT. In fact, it's unclear whether you can do BOTH!
I don't think anybody is saying GM did anything "malicious" here, but they definitely did something "wrong", and it's their "fault" (and no one else's).
2011 Equinox 1LT (new Jan 2011): Summit White / 3.0 L V6 / FWD / Pioneer Stereo / 18" Wheels / 131.6k miles [14-JUN-2019]
2002 Impala 1LT (new Jun 2002): Summit White / 3.4 L V6 / FWD / Cassette-CD Combo /222.5k miles [13-JUN-2019]
Last edited by Colt Hero; 07-05-2019 at 03:38 PM.