A collision repair that deviated from the repair procedures outlined by Honda ultimately named a Texas of body shop in a major lawsuit. The lawsuit alleges more than $42 million in damages after a couple became trapped inside their 2010 Honda Fit. When serious injuries are caused by a defective repair, including the improper installation or fix on a roof, an accident might prompt the affected consumers to file a lawsuit for recovery.
The absence of a fuel tank cover, which would have been in accordance with Honda’s repair procedures say the plaintiffs, would have prevented the devastating injuries.
Traditional roof repair includes industry standards to ensure that a roof is both properly secured and allows for safety in the event of a vehicle rollover. If the roof is not repaired appropriately and consumers never know about it, a life-threatening accident may occur.
In a 2012 repair for hail, according to the John Eagle Collision Center’s manager, the company used structural adhesive to attach the roof to the top of the car. Honda’s requirements however, are that a roof be welded on.
Although the lawsuit and resulting investigations did not identify who was responsible for the missing fuel tank cover, the plaintiffs argue that this was the reason they became trapped inside their vehicle in a critical accident.
The repair was completed for the previous owner of the vehicle and the plaintiffs were unaware that it has happened and that the body work did not fall in line with Honda’s requirements.
The consumers hurt in the accident argue that the body shop is responsible for these defective repairs..
Insurance Payment Made to Body Shop for an Allegedly Defective Repair
The 2012 hail repair led to a State Farm payment of more than $8,500 to John Eagle Collision, according to the lawsuit. The repair procedures from Honda show a tack-weld to the front and the rear corner edges of the roof in addition to adding spot welds and plug welds.
The plaintiffs alleged there was no way they would have known that the roof was glued on instead of welded because the paint and trim concealed up how the job was carried out.
However, the facts and the testimony in the defective repair lawsuit illustrated that glue was used rather than welding because it was a cheaper solution. The defective repair lawsuit was based on the fact that the plaintiffs became trapped inside their car during an accident in which another car hydroplaned into the Fit on a 75 mph section of the road.
While the occupants of the other car were uninjured, severe injuries affected the plaintiffs inside the car with the glued-on roof, prompting them to file the defective repair lawsuit.
If you believe you have grounds to file a defective repair lawsuit, consult with the experienced attorneys at McDonald Worley today – fill out the form on this page to learn more.