91Ô­´´

Skip to content
Join our Newsletter

In the Courts: Ford vehicle owners propose B.C. class-action suit over ‘spontaneous’ fires

Plaintiffs claim car giant’s solution was ‘inadequate’ and created new problems
supreme-court-scales-rob-kruyt
The B.C. Supreme Court in 91Ô­´´

Plaintiffs in a proposed class-action lawsuit are seeking damages from Ford Motor Co. (NYSE:F) for allegedly defective engines that have reportedly caused spontaneous fires in the car manufacturer’s vehicles.

According to court filings with the BC Supreme Court, the alleged defective engines leak “highly flammable oil fluids and fuel vapours” that pool near hot surfaces, “resulting in under-hood smoke and fire during operation, or while parked, all of which poses an imminent and substantial risk of harm or injury to vehicle occupants, bystanders” and damage to the vehicles themselves.

The proposed class action names Abbotsford resident Pardeep Kumar Sharma as its title plaintiff and specifically targets Ford’s Escape (2020-22 models), Maverick (2022 model) and Lincoln Corsair (2021-22 models).

The action claims Ford received warranty claims as early as April 5, 2021, but the company continued to sell and lease the vehicles “and did nothing to warn purchasers and/or lessees of the spontaneous fire risk” until a stop-sale order on June 8, 2022.

The company  a global recall of some of its models in November 2022 over fire risks.

“At the very least, the defendants … certainly knew about the spontaneous fire risk well before it issued their recall,” reads the notice of civil claim.

The plaintiffs claim the fix prescribed by Ford for the issue was “an inadequate solution” and created new problems. 

Specifically, the fix still allowed fuel vapours to leak out of the vehicles, according to the lawsuit, creating “an environmental hazard and [setting] the stage for further property damage and/or injury.”

“A vehicle that has a risk of spontaneously catching on fire while in operation is not fit for its intended and ordinary purpose. And a ‘fix’ that does nothing to actually address an underlying issue, and in fact creates additional problems, is not a fix at all,” the lawsuit claims.