Browning et al v. Kia America Incorporated et al

On December 8, 2022, Patricia Browning and Melvin Essomba (together, “Plaintiffs”), individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals, represented by Richard P. Traulsen of Begam Marks & Traulsen, P.A., filed a class action product liability lawsuit against Kia America, Inc. (“Kia”) and Hyundai Motor America, Inc. (“Hyundai”) (collectively “Defendants”), seeking declaratory relief with damages for alleged unfair, deceptive, and/or fraudulent business practices. This case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, with Judge John J. Tuchi presiding.

Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and on behalf of a class of similarly situated consumers against defendants who purchased or leased vehicles manufactured and sold by defendants.

In the complaint, the plaintiffs stated, “Defendants manufacture and sell motor vehicles in the United States and Arizona. These products include popular models like the Hyundai Tucson and Santa Fe and the Kia Sportage and Sorento.”

The plaintiffs then alleged, “Defendants’ vehicles suffer from a significant defect: they do not include an engine immobilizer. An engine immobilizer is designed to prevent vehicle theft when a vehicle is left unattended. An engine immobilizer works by transmitting a code to the vehicle when the key is inserted in the ignition switch or a key fob is inside the vehicle.”

Plaintiffs further alleged, “Thefts of Kia and Hyundai vehicles has risen substantially across the United States as knowledge of the defect is now widespread.”

Plaintiffs also alleged, “Because vehicles manufactured and sold by Kia and Hyundai suffer from a defect, thieves only need to gain access to a vehicle, and once inside, strip the ignition column and insert a screwdriver, knife, or even a USB cord to start the vehicle.”

The plaintiffs then alleged, “Kia and Hyundai are aware that their vehicles lack engine immobilizers. Kia and Hyundai are aware that thefts of vehicles manufactured and sold by them have increased nationwide.”

The plaintiffs further alleged, “Despite the rise in vehicle thefts, Kia and Hyundai have not issued a recall or offered to install vehicle immobilizers in the affected vehicles.”

Plaintiffs also alleged, “Plaintiffs purchased vehicles manufactured by Defendants which suffer from the defect. Plaintiffs would not have purchased the vehicles or would have paid less for the vehicles had Plaintiffs known about the defect.”

The plaintiffs additionally alleged, “As a result of Defendants’ unfair, deceptive, and/or fraudulent business practices, consumers of these products, including Plaintiffs, have suffered an ascertainable loss, injury-in-fact, and otherwise have been harmed by Defendants’ conduct.”

Plaintiffs presented six claims for relief, including alleged breach of the implied warranty of usability and merchantability, negligent failure to warn, strict liability for design defect, violation of the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act, and unjust enrichment.

In the prayer for relief, the plaintiffs requested a finding that Defendants breached the implied warranty of usability and merchantability; Defendants negligently failed to warn plaintiffs and the class; Defendants’ vehicles contain a design defect; and Defendants violated the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. The plaintiffs also requested an award of damages along with pre- and post-judgment interest together with costs of litigation. 

This is a summary of a legal complaint. All statements, claims, and allegations listed herein reflect the position of the plaintiff only and do not represent the position of UniCourt. Additionally, this case summary may not reflect the current position of the parties to this litigation or the current status of this case. To view the latest case updates and court documents, please sign up for a UniCourt account.